Why Atheism is Not Logical or Rational (no bible thumping)
Options
Comments
-
If the argument is intelligent design proves the existence of a creator, but the design is not intelligent, then it obviously does not prove ? now does it?
Who are you to say the design isn't intelligent? Have you seen how complex DNA is? You believe that since the universe isn't utopian and purely utilitarian then it's not possible that it could have been intentionally created. That's irrational. That's the point of the thread.DERP
English please.Arguments by analogy are trash
look at the first comments to this thread, they stressed the failures of the analogy and the details it can not explain
Seldom are two objects similar enough for an analogy to really hold after the differences are examined
It's well established in logic and philosophy
Subjective. The first comments in this thread were variedAbiogenesis is a completely different topic
even if it is not true it does not prove a ? exists, which is the topic of the thread
Either life originated from nothing or life originated from something. There's no evidence that supports the idea that life originated from nothing. There's only speculation. That's relevant to the thread topic.Basically, you feel a ? exists so you think it's true
that's fine
I don't think with my feelings though
Straw man much? -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »I'm a believer and all, but believing in ? isn't really logical. That's kinda the point. You're supposed to operate based on faith which means you believe even if you don't have a logical reason to do so.
Believing in ? isn't logical or believing in the Abrahamic incarnation of ? ?
This is a very good question to ask. It seems like whenever someone makes the case for the existence of ? , those against the notion presuppose this conclusion that it means the ? of the Bible or the Quran...or any other monotheistic religions. Then it becomes an attempt to debunk religion instead of looking past the teachings and rituals. -
Say you were wandering through the desert. Walking and walking. You see the standard desert things as far as the eyes can: rocks, sand etc. And then out of nowhere you stumble upon a a table, fully set with chairs, plates, and silverware. You look around and there's nobody around at all. No traces of civilization anywhere in your vicinity. No footprints, nothing. And it looked like it had put there relatively recently.
It would be irrational to deduce that the tableset simply must have created and set itself. The salad fork placed itself in the correct spot next to the... (wherever the salad fork goes). It would be illogical to reach the conclusion that the entire table set was generated just randomly and coincidentally naturally. Even though you didn't see it, most reasonable people would reach the conclusion that at some point this table, these chairs, and this silverware was created by someone. And SOMEBODY set this table out in the desert, as odd as it seems. Who knows why, but they did it.
And yet we have a wide spread belief that an entire Universe can be put into existence randomly. We look at the immutable laws of science and reach the conclusion that they must have wrote themselves. We look at the world and see how an ecosystem was set to perpetuate life through a "barter system": the plants need carbon dioxide and create oxygen. Animals and humans need Oxygen and create carbon dioxide.
I consider myself Christian, but if you look at Christian beliefs and be like "ehhh nah" then that's understandable. But to sit up and denounce all form of spirituality and deny that the universe has a creator just comes off as pretty unreasonable. A table can't set itself, but a universe can? Nah that's not adding up.
I'm sorry but that is one of the most illogical and irrational analogies I've ever read. If I was a christian that ? would probably have me rethinking my whole belief system just out of spite.
The oddest part is that what you described has actually happened many times throughout history - and every time no one ever assumes the "table" (or tomb or pyramid or tablet or whatever) randomly created itself - they ask who created it and why and what does it mean. that's the nature of science.
To use your same analogy but in reverse that would be like discovering Tutankhamen's tomb and just assuming that it was created by some random ? because you either can't or don't want to bother trying to explain it any other way. To assume the object created itself would be more in line with religion than science.
Also, no scientist worth listening to has ever said the universe just spontaneously created itself out of nothing. Ever.
But since you brought it up... does ? have a mother? Or did it just create itself out of nothing? -
as an aside, science doesn't disprove the existence of ? and it likely never will. but it can and has disproved many tenets of religion. historically if a religion doesn't somehow adapt itself over time to incorporate what becomes explainable by science it becomes mythology.
this guy knows this...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-? -isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html -
alissowack wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »I'm a believer and all, but believing in ? isn't really logical. That's kinda the point. You're supposed to operate based on faith which means you believe even if you don't have a logical reason to do so.
Believing in ? isn't logical or believing in the Abrahamic incarnation of ? ?
This is a very good question to ask. It seems like whenever someone makes the case for the existence of ? , those against the notion presuppose this conclusion that it means the ? of the Bible or the Quran...or any other monotheistic religions. Then it becomes an attempt to debunk religion instead of looking past the teachings and rituals.
Those religions and books came about their conclusions in the same exact fashion as anyone that believes in a ? . If those religions weren't around and didn't present the concept, would you independently imagine a higher being that created us? Maybe you would. Before the Abrahamic religions, people thought trees had spirits, and the Gods were many. Christians have no issue laughing their theories off because they are looked at as unsupported fables. It's not a matter of a particular religion but a particular concept presented, and debunked. There shouldn't even be a word like atheism because it gives more credence to theism as if it has a foundation to stand on. You can't be anti what isn't (as in nothing has been presented factually). To even call these presentations theories is laughable. They haven't even gone past hypothesis stage. Or at least it shouldn't default to mean anti belief in ? , rather then anti blind acceptance of unfounded ideas presented by other people. -
That's a false equivalence.
The desert and the table.
1. We are Human.
2. We know for a fact humans make tables and chairs.
3. We know for a fact Humans set table and chairs.
How do we know this? Because we are human and have observed other humans doing so, or have even done so ourselves. So it's pretty logical to assume someone set it up.
The Universe and Earth.
1. We are Human.
2. We don't know for a fact that there is some being out there capable of creating Universes.
3. If said being exist, we don't know for a fact if he is some omnipotent observer.
We are human, and have not observed or witnessed a being capable of doing this. So imo it is not as logical as the table incident to assume someone created, since we don't have the above information.
I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.
As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.
A laptop or any man object for that matter cannot be compared to the universe, once the person from the 60's observes it, he would easily be able to tell it's some kind of man made object, unless he is some kind of primitive. -
If the argument is intelligent design proves the existence of a creator, but the design is not intelligent, then it obviously does not prove ? now does it?
Who are you to say the design isn't intelligent? Have you seen how complex DNA is? You believe that since the universe isn't utopian and purely utilitarian then it's not possible that it could have been intentionally created. That's irrational. That's the point of the thread.DERP
English please.Arguments by analogy are trash
look at the first comments to this thread, they stressed the failures of the analogy and the details it can not explain
Seldom are two objects similar enough for an analogy to really hold after the differences are examined
It's well established in logic and philosophy
Subjective. The first comments in this thread were variedAbiogenesis is a completely different topic
even if it is not true it does not prove a ? exists, which is the topic of the thread
Either life originated from nothing or life originated from something. There's no evidence that supports the idea that life originated from nothing. There's only speculation. That's relevant to the thread topic.Basically, you feel a ? exists so you think it's true
that's fine
I don't think with my feelings though
Straw man much?
The creation contradicts the nature of the creator. Not only that but there is no reason to believe there is intention behind it as there is no direct evidence, only speculation. In the face of the support for the more scientific theories there is no reason to believe theistic accounts.
It's not subjective if it can be empirically shown
Pick up any text of assorted philosophical writings
There will typically be works written in response to others, and the arguments by analogy are by far the most often refuted b/c of how easy it is to counter them
It's a type of inductive reasoning, and inductive reasoning will always be inferior to deductive logic -
I hate to oversimplify things.....but are we really still debating about ? that can't be 100% proven as fact?
be·lief
bəˈlēf/
noun
noun: belief; plural noun: beliefs
1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.
"contrary to popular belief, Aramaic is a living language"
synonyms: opinion, view, conviction, judgment, thinking, way of thinking, idea, impression, theory, conclusion, notion
"it's my belief that age is irrelevant"
a religious conviction.
"Christian beliefs"
synonyms: ideology, principle, ethic, tenet, canon; More
2.
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
synonyms: faith, trust, reliance, confidence, credence
"belief in the value of hard work"
antonyms: disbelief, doubt
Faith is belief that is not based on proof.[1] It can also be defined as confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion, as well as confidence based on some degree of warrant.[2][3] The word faith is often used as a synonym for hope,[4] trust,[5] or belief.[6]
Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings. A theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory.
A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case.
Fact is sometimes used synonymously with truth, as distinct from opinions, falsehoods, or matters of taste.
-
This is a ridiculous analogy.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson also obliterated believing when he came up with his story about "the ? of the gaps" or humans applying the supernatural once our ability to explain things through science begin to diminish.
We see this today with what the Pope came out with recently. Gods or dieities have always explained what science could not and once science began to explain it there was no need for dieities anymore.
Zeus used to be as real as Jesus but now we call him a myth, we can explain lighting now and have no need for a supernatural explanation.
I don't blame the religious for believing. The universe is confusing and not welcoming at all, sometimes you want to feel like someone is watching over you, it makes you feel safe. Unfortunately, I have no need for that most times.
I'm agnostic by the way, so I don't totally rule out ? but it isn't looking good as far a a evidence is concerned. -
as an aside, science doesn't disprove the existence of ? and it likely never will. but it can and has disproved many tenets of religion. historically if a religion doesn't somehow adapt itself over time to incorporate what becomes explainable by science it becomes mythology.
this guy knows this...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-? -isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html
My analogy was so flawed and irrational that it made you see the point of the thread.
I just need one atheist to explain to me without all the emotion: if science has not disproved the existence of ? and likely never will how is it logical to rule out the possibility of a Creator of the Universe, which atheism does? I'm not talking about an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent , all loving ? . I'm talking about simply a being that created the Universe.
I'm not arguing tenets of religion. I already said most religions aren't rational, including Christianity. People's arguments are falling flat because they're trying to debunk the existence of a ? that exists as described in The Bible, which isn't what this thread is about.
If you want to dodge the question by focusing on how a table is not the exact same thing as a universe, than so be it. At least contribute intellectually by answering the underlined.
I saw what Neil De Grasse Tyson had to say and his reasoning was flawed. Because the universe wasn't created as he would have done it in all of his earthly knowledge, it's impossible or unlikely that it was created with intention by a being. That's not Science. That's philosophy that's projecting human intentions and sensibilities onto whatever it is that would have created universe. That debunks nothing.
Yes, historically there were certain people in the world who believed that lightning came from a ? called Zeus who lived on a mountain. The fact that we have science that explains how lightning actually works doesn't debunk every tenent of every theistic line of thought known to man.
And because I want no dodging I'm going to ask this again: if science has not disproved the existence of ? and likely never will how is it logical to rule out the possibility of a Creator of the Universe, which atheism does? -
See my reply to BoldChild about the underlined.Your argument fails on a couple grounds
Those are all man made objects you mention in the OP
It injects a bias into the analogy similar to the intelligent design argument
"When I see a watch I know a human made it, therefore the universe has a maker too"
Except watches are human creations
If you had no prior experience to watches, say you were a papoose that had never seen one before, you would not necessarily know it is a human creation
the bias of your experiences with watches informs you that humans made it
Much like it would in your example
Your conclusion that the universe needs a creator because of its complexity fails to realize it's own shortsightedness:
If the complexity of the universe necessitates an intelligent designer then surely the complexity of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being does too.
So then you say what, that ? made himself? Then you commit the same alleged transgression you just criticized.
To the bolded,I say the explanation of a Supreme Being that always was answers this. Science says that because of the way the Universe is expanding, it most likely had a definite point in space/time where it "started". It's not likely that the Universe has always existed. The existence of a theoretical (for the sake of argument) Creator that predates the existence of the Universe would clear this up, because it itself wouldn't need a creator because it always was, unlike human life, the universe, and the man-made objects in the o/p .
If the Universe has a starting point then that being would seemingly need to exist outside of space and time in order to create it. How exactly would such a being function?
It's a huge assumption to believe that it is even possible when as far as I know it is not.
Also, atheism derived from skepticism is not resolved by your issue
If beliefs are to be based on evidence, and there is none for a ? , then the belief is not reasonable
I stated the underlined myself. My main point was that most atheists are just as dogmatic as theists. @ the bolded, who knows? Perhaps a multiverse? All speculation. Show me some science or evidence that disproves the existence of a Creator, or that explains the beginning of the universe.
I pose to you the same question that I asked Ruberto, if you're an atheist what reason do you have to discount the possibility of the universe being intelligently designed?
The intelligent design argument was squashed pretty easily by Neil Degrasse Tyson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEl9kVl6KPc
TLDW: It's an unintelligent design
Furthermore it's an argument by analogy, which is basically the weakest argument that could be made
There is little evidence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being
Also a lot of the intelligent design stuff can be explained by evolution
But evolution has more proof
So it is the more believable view
I'm not atheist but this is a pretty powerful video. I've always said IF THERE IS a ? , it's a ? up who didn't design the world very well. -
@stiff you are wasting your time atheist never admit that scientifically backed atheism is not rational
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »I'm a believer and all, but believing in ? isn't really logical. That's kinda the point. You're supposed to operate based on faith which means you believe even if you don't have a logical reason to do so.
Believing in ? isn't logical or believing in the Abrahamic incarnation of ? ?
Believing in a ? in general. There isn't any hard proof supporting the existence of a ? . At the end of the day, faith is your only reason to believe. You can't really make a fully logical argument for why there must be a ? . You can make good arguments, but they will always include some speculation or faith based assertions.
A logical argument that supports the belief in a ? is the existence of the universe. Unless something is infinite then it had to have a starting point. Most astronomers believe that the Universe had a starting point, so how would it be illogical to believe that an outside force contributed to the starting point? I don't think it's illogical to come to the conclusion that a created thing had a creator.
The illogical part of that argument is basically that you're saying since science hasn't uncovered the answers to all the questions of the universe, ? must have done all the things that we don't yet have an explanation for. That's tantamount to a Ancient Greek saying "I can provide a scientific answer for where lightning comes from so Zeus must be throwing it."
-
as an aside, science doesn't disprove the existence of ? and it likely never will. but it can and has disproved many tenets of religion. historically if a religion doesn't somehow adapt itself over time to incorporate what becomes explainable by science it becomes mythology.
this guy knows this...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-? -isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html
Nice post, I think most of us here can agree, atheist or not, that science is making religion look more and more silly and backward all the time. -
for science to prove that the universe was not created, science would have to explain how something can come from nothing without there being a ? INVOLVED like i explained in my earlier post ( that i don't think anyone here can understand) the laws of science itself show that this cannot be.
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »I'm a believer and all, but believing in ? isn't really logical. That's kinda the point. You're supposed to operate based on faith which means you believe even if you don't have a logical reason to do so.
Believing in ? isn't logical or believing in the Abrahamic incarnation of ? ?
Believing in a ? in general. There isn't any hard proof supporting the existence of a ? . At the end of the day, faith is your only reason to believe. You can't really make a fully logical argument for why there must be a ? . You can make good arguments, but they will always include some speculation or faith based assertions.
A logical argument that supports the belief in a ? is the existence of the universe. Unless something is infinite then it had to have a starting point. Most astronomers believe that the Universe had a starting point, so how would it be illogical to believe that an outside force contributed to the starting point? I don't think it's illogical to come to the conclusion that a created thing had a creator.
The illogical part of that argument is basically that you're saying since science hasn't uncovered the answers to all the questions of the universe, ? must have done all the things that we don't yet have an explanation for. That's tantamount to a Ancient Greek saying "I can provide a scientific answer for where lightning comes from so Zeus must be throwing it."
To that I say this, I believe that certain knowledge is beyond the realm of human comprehension or understanding. The same way a cat couldn't fathom astronomy, I believe there are some things that the human mind couldn't fathom even at its peak of knowledge. I believe some things are simply unknowable and could never be explained by science. Sure in the time of Ancient Greeks the bar was much lower, but I believe that the bar has a ceiling. I think it's human arrogance to believe otherwise. Just as there are very basic limits to our perception of the world/universe around us, I think there are similarly basic limits to our understanding of it.
-
The dominant theories do not say the universe came from nothing
-
The dominant theories do not say the universe came from nothing
if the universe did not come from nothing then it had to come from something which means it had to be created and science has disproved the eternal universe -
I hate to oversimplify things.....but are we really still debating about ? that can't be 100% proven as fact?
be·lief
bəˈlēf/
noun
noun: belief; plural noun: beliefs
1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.
"contrary to popular belief, Aramaic is a living language"
synonyms: opinion, view, conviction, judgment, thinking, way of thinking, idea, impression, theory, conclusion, notion
"it's my belief that age is irrelevant"
a religious conviction.
"Christian beliefs"
synonyms: ideology, principle, ethic, tenet, canon; More
2.
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
synonyms: faith, trust, reliance, confidence, credence
"belief in the value of hard work"
antonyms: disbelief, doubt
Faith is belief that is not based on proof.[1] It can also be defined as confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion, as well as confidence based on some degree of warrant.[2][3] The word faith is often used as a synonym for hope,[4] trust,[5] or belief.[6]
Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings. A theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory.
A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case.
Fact is sometimes used synonymously with truth, as distinct from opinions, falsehoods, or matters of taste.
That's the thing though, I'm not trying to debate the existence of ? . That'd be an epic waste of time, because of what your post laid out. I'm basically trying to demonstrate how atheism is just as illogical as most religions are. Not a single atheist in all of their infinite wisdom in this thread has been able to answer this simple question, and they all want to ignore it: if science has not disproved the existence of ? and likely never will how is it logical to rule out the possibility of a Creator of the Universe, which atheism does? Instead people keep dropping Neil Degrasse Tyson references like he got all the answers lol.
I don't equate agnosticism with atheism, and truth be told I find agnosticism to be the most reasonable view because it's the most open minded. Atheism seems like an emotional rejection of whatever the prevailing religion is at the atheist's time that they feel oppressed by. It also seems like an emotional reaction of disillusionment with the suffering's of the world, which is why so many atheist's arguments are something like "you see? How could there be a ? if he allows something like this to happen?". -
If the argument is intelligent design proves the existence of a creator, but the design is not intelligent, then it obviously does not prove ? now does it?
Who are you to say the design isn't intelligent? Have you seen how complex DNA is? You believe that since the universe isn't utopian and purely utilitarian then it's not possible that it could have been intentionally created. That's irrational. That's the point of the thread.DERP
English please.Arguments by analogy are trash
look at the first comments to this thread, they stressed the failures of the analogy and the details it can not explain
Seldom are two objects similar enough for an analogy to really hold after the differences are examined
It's well established in logic and philosophy
Subjective. The first comments in this thread were variedAbiogenesis is a completely different topic
even if it is not true it does not prove a ? exists, which is the topic of the thread
Either life originated from nothing or life originated from something. There's no evidence that supports the idea that life originated from nothing. There's only speculation. That's relevant to the thread topic.Basically, you feel a ? exists so you think it's true
that's fine
I don't think with my feelings though
Straw man much?
The creation contradicts the nature of the creator. Not only that but there is no reason to believe there is intention behind it as there is no direct evidence, only speculation. In the face of the support for the more scientific theories there is no reason to believe theistic accounts.
How could you say the creation contradicts the nature of the creator when you have no knowledge of the nature of this theoretical creator? There is no direct evidence of the absence of the existence of a creator, only speculation. The fact that there are holes in the science is enough reason to believe some theistic(and that's an extremely broad net to cast) accounts. You've reached your conclusion off of speculation just like any theist has.
-
That in no way means that a ? is that something
-
If the argument is intelligent design proves the existence of a creator, but the design is not intelligent, then it obviously does not prove ? now does it?
Who are you to say the design isn't intelligent? Have you seen how complex DNA is? You believe that since the universe isn't utopian and purely utilitarian then it's not possible that it could have been intentionally created. That's irrational. That's the point of the thread.DERP
English please.Arguments by analogy are trash
look at the first comments to this thread, they stressed the failures of the analogy and the details it can not explain
Seldom are two objects similar enough for an analogy to really hold after the differences are examined
It's well established in logic and philosophy
Subjective. The first comments in this thread were variedAbiogenesis is a completely different topic
even if it is not true it does not prove a ? exists, which is the topic of the thread
Either life originated from nothing or life originated from something. There's no evidence that supports the idea that life originated from nothing. There's only speculation. That's relevant to the thread topic.Basically, you feel a ? exists so you think it's true
that's fine
I don't think with my feelings though
Straw man much?
The creation contradicts the nature of the creator. Not only that but there is no reason to believe there is intention behind it as there is no direct evidence, only speculation. In the face of the support for the more scientific theories there is no reason to believe theistic accounts.
How could you say the creation contradicts the nature of the creator when you have no knowledge of the nature of this theoretical creator? There is no direct evidence of the absence of the existence of a creator, only speculation. The fact that there are holes in the science is enough reason to believe some theistic(and that's an extremely broad net to cast) accounts. You've reached your conclusion off of speculation just like any theist has.
The nature of the creator is described by religious texts.
I would not believe there was a bird on your head unless I saw one. To assume that there is a bird on your head when I can not see it and have no evidence indicating that is ridiculous. Likewise for the belief in a ? .
I've reached my conclusion off of moderate skepticism
Asking for evidence and being presented nothing convincing
Just arguments from analogies and promises of reward after death
-
If the argument is intelligent design proves the existence of a creator, but the design is not intelligent, then it obviously does not prove ? now does it?
Who are you to say the design isn't intelligent? Have you seen how complex DNA is? You believe that since the universe isn't utopian and purely utilitarian then it's not possible that it could have been intentionally created. That's irrational. That's the point of the thread.DERP
English please.Arguments by analogy are trash
look at the first comments to this thread, they stressed the failures of the analogy and the details it can not explain
Seldom are two objects similar enough for an analogy to really hold after the differences are examined
It's well established in logic and philosophy
Subjective. The first comments in this thread were variedAbiogenesis is a completely different topic
even if it is not true it does not prove a ? exists, which is the topic of the thread
Either life originated from nothing or life originated from something. There's no evidence that supports the idea that life originated from nothing. There's only speculation. That's relevant to the thread topic.Basically, you feel a ? exists so you think it's true
that's fine
I don't think with my feelings though
Straw man much?
The creation contradicts the nature of the creator. Not only that but there is no reason to believe there is intention behind it as there is no direct evidence, only speculation. In the face of the support for the more scientific theories there is no reason to believe theistic accounts.
How could you say the creation contradicts the nature of the creator when you have no knowledge of the nature of this theoretical creator? There is no direct evidence of the absence of the existence of a creator, only speculation. The fact that there are holes in the science is enough reason to believe some theistic(and that's an extremely broad net to cast) accounts. You've reached your conclusion off of speculation just like any theist has.
The nature of the creator is described by religious texts.
I would not believe there was a bird on your head unless I saw one. To assume that there is a bird on your head when I can not see it and have no evidence indicating that is ridiculous. Likewise for the belief in a ? .
I've reached my conclusion off of moderate skepticism
Asking for evidence and being presented nothing convincing
Just arguments from analogies and promises of reward after death
You're debating religion which is the flaw of your argument. There are various descriptions of various deities throughout numerous religions that have been practiced throughout human history. That's not what we're talking about here. It seems like your whole stance has been against the ? described in the Bible, which is not what this discussion is about.
There is plenty of evidence that supports the idea of intelligent design ( the complexity of DNA, the uniformity of the laws of the universe, etc). You however can present no evidence that debunks the idea of intelligent design, just the argument "the universe isn't perfect like how i would have designed"
And then you dedicate multiple posts talking about how analogies are the weakest form of argument -- and then you come back and argue your point with an analogy. LOL that's silly. Stop ducking this question:
If science has not disproved the existence of ? and likely never will how is it logical to rule out the possibility of a Creator of the Universe, which atheism does? -
That's difficult to answer because you're using science and atheism almost interchangeably but they're actually completely unrelated.
An atheist can believe whatever they want - their beliefs aren't bound by science anymore than a Christian's would be. -
That's difficult to answer because you're using science and atheism almost interchangeably but they're actually completely unrelated.
An atheist can believe whatever they want - their beliefs aren't bound by science anymore than a Christian's would be.
I'm not using them interchangeably. And atheism isn't some abstract concept it has a very basic definition : the rejection of the belief of the existence of deities.
With no solid evidence debunking the existence of a being that created the universe. while there is evidence of the existence of one, how is it logical to reach the absolute conclusion that such a being couldn't possibly exist? It's just as dogmatic as religion is, and that's my point. It's not supported by science either.
