Why Atheism is Not Logical or Rational (no bible thumping)
Options
Comments
-
the nothing as defined by scientists is not the common usage that average people use. but even by that definition the universe cannot come from nothing for the reasons I already detailed
It would seem we are not certain on that
We do not have a full theory of quantum gravity
we can trace the universe back 13 billion some odd years but at a certain point we simply have no way of knowing what exactly transpired nor how it was initiated
It would also seem that if the birth of the universe marks the beginning of time, then whatever happened prior to it that led to the creation of everything we experience would have had to happen outside of time
which in is unintelligible imo
We could speculate about what it is that could be responsible for this
and if for reference sake we call it ? , it still does not establish any of the assumptions made in the OP
1) We see no evidence there was intention or purpose when the universe was created
2) Nor is there undeniable evidence of a deity which would render atheism illogical
3) There is also an issue where something which has always existed or created itself is more believable when it's deity rather than the universe itself. What evidence is there for the latter than the former, when both rest on an equally absurd assumption if contrasted to things we have observed?
The bolded should be the end of the conversation. WE don't have the information to say a ? exist or not. therefore using science to bolster one's atheism is not rational.
1) WE SEE NO EVIDENCE that there was not an intention behind the universe the universe being hostile to life is no evidence.
2) there is no undeniable evidence that any kind of deity does not exist.
3) the thing is we know that the universe had a starting point so we know the universe has not always existed. however the same cannot be said for a deity because we can not objectively rule out his existence using science.
people can decide to be irrational atheist but many atheist have to much of pride to admit this plus they like to feel superior to theist which is arrogant and foolish because when you get down to it both positions are not rational. AT LEAST THEIST ADMIT to not be objectively rational. -
" 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?"
Atheism does not rule out the possibility of a ? . It simply treats the concept of ? as any other idea without elevating as religion does. The core of this position and the core of atheism is based upon this approach to ? . It was outlined by Bertrand Russel in his Teapot Argument. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot )
It goes something like this. I claim there is a teapot orbiting Saturn. (It was placed there by a passing ET that thought it would be funny to do it.) You can not produce evidence to prove I am wrong, however this does nothing to bolster my claim of the teapot's existence. I could also claim, as religion does, that the teapot is sentient and wants us to dance the Hokey-Pokey each morning because the ET that put it in orbit will vaporize the earth on his return if we do not.
Unsurprisingly, I doubt anyone will start dancing each day to ward off this alien based on my claims. This is the same result an atheist has when confronted with claims of Gods by theists.
Why accept them when there does not seem to be any actual evidence.
You nailed it
Hume's writing about coming to our beliefs by weighing evidence in favor and against, as well as his critique of religious miracles also influenced a lot of secular thought
But when they are assuming the conclusion without establishing why, and then maintaining their belief simply because there is not enough evidence to prove otherwise, the argument looks really circular -
" 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?"
Atheism does not rule out the possibility of a ? . It simply treats the concept of ? as any other idea without elevating as religion does. The core of this position and the core of atheism is based upon this approach to ? . It was outlined by Bertrand Russel in his Teapot Argument. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot )
It goes something like this. I claim there is a teapot orbiting Saturn. (It was placed there by a passing ET that thought it would be funny to do it.) You can not produce evidence to prove I am wrong, however this does nothing to bolster my claim of the teapot's existence. I could also claim, as religion does, that the teapot is sentient and wants us to dance the Hokey-Pokey each morning because the ET that put it in orbit will vaporize the earth on his return if we do not.
Unsurprisingly, I doubt anyone will start dancing each day to ward off this alien based on my claims. This is the same result an atheist has when confronted with claims of Gods by theists.
Why accept them when there does not seem to be any actual evidence.
The teapot argument seems to suggest that when someone is making a claim about ? 's Existence, they are trying to smuggle in religion. Unfortunately it seems as though the only ones who are interested in making this argument are the religious, but the intent is not to...get people to dance the Hokey Pokey once convinced of the arguments presented. It's to take what little we understand about the beginning of the universe and narrow it down to one cause for it...which it un-caused. All religions could be wrong in how they depict the nature and actions of ? , but it shouldn't do anything to disturb the logic behind it. -
The Teapot argument does not make that challenge to religion (I added the additional claims). It is based on the role of evidence in our beliefs. As Trashboat mentioned Hume delved deeply into the subject while Russel's analogy is just a simple way to discuss it.
If someone claims there is a ? then they must provide sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to accept it. The atheist is under no burden to provide proof of ? 's non-existence. -
alissowack wrote: »" 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?"
Atheism does not rule out the possibility of a ? . It simply treats the concept of ? as any other idea without elevating as religion does. The core of this position and the core of atheism is based upon this approach to ? . It was outlined by Bertrand Russel in his Teapot Argument. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot )
It goes something like this. I claim there is a teapot orbiting Saturn. (It was placed there by a passing ET that thought it would be funny to do it.) You can not produce evidence to prove I am wrong, however this does nothing to bolster my claim of the teapot's existence. I could also claim, as religion does, that the teapot is sentient and wants us to dance the Hokey-Pokey each morning because the ET that put it in orbit will vaporize the earth on his return if we do not.
Unsurprisingly, I doubt anyone will start dancing each day to ward off this alien based on my claims. This is the same result an atheist has when confronted with claims of Gods by theists.
Why accept them when there does not seem to be any actual evidence.
The teapot argument seems to suggest that when someone is making a claim about ? 's Existence, they are trying to smuggle in religion. Unfortunately it seems as though the only ones who are interested in making this argument are the religious, but the intent is not to...get people to dance the Hokey Pokey once convinced of the arguments presented. It's to take what little we understand about the beginning of the universe and narrow it down to one cause for it...which it un-caused. All religions could be wrong in how they depict the nature and actions of ? , but it shouldn't do anything to disturb the logic behind it.
The teapot argument illustrates how illogical it is to assume your conclusion and then maintain the belief because it can't be disproved absolutely
If by religion you mean blind faith then yeah basically
-
The Iconoclast wrote: »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. -
How is Jesus supposed to knock us off guard and come like a theif in the night if nuclear world war, famine, disease, Mark of the beast, and all this other ? is supposed to occur first?
-
The Teapot argument does not make that challenge to religion (I added the additional claims). It is based on the role of evidence in our beliefs. As Trashboat mentioned Hume delved deeply into the subject while Russel's analogy is just a simple way to discuss it.
If someone claims there is a ? then they must provide sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to accept it. The atheist is under no burden to provide proof of ? 's non-existence.
I'm not really saying that the argument is challenging religion. I'm saying that it is arguing against people using logic behind the existence of ? . Despite not really know if there is a ? or not, I am yet to have someone who doubts the existence of ? to at least say that the logic is sound. It like...the existence of ? argument is not about religion either. -
alissowack wrote: »The Teapot argument does not make that challenge to religion (I added the additional claims). It is based on the role of evidence in our beliefs. As Trashboat mentioned Hume delved deeply into the subject while Russel's analogy is just a simple way to discuss it.
If someone claims there is a ? then they must provide sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to accept it. The atheist is under no burden to provide proof of ? 's non-existence.
I'm not really saying that the argument is challenging religion. I'm saying that it is arguing against people using logic behind the existence of ? . Despite not really know if there is a ? or not, I am yet to have someone who doubts the existence of ? to at least say that the logic is sound. It like...the existence of ? argument is not about religion either.
Most here are arguing against the theist position which most religions hold. Truncating theistic religion doesn't help the ? argument. Creating erroneous scenarios that conflict with reality doesn't help either. -
The Iconoclast wrote: »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." -
FuriousOne wrote: »alissowack wrote: »The Teapot argument does not make that challenge to religion (I added the additional claims). It is based on the role of evidence in our beliefs. As Trashboat mentioned Hume delved deeply into the subject while Russel's analogy is just a simple way to discuss it.
If someone claims there is a ? then they must provide sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to accept it. The atheist is under no burden to provide proof of ? 's non-existence.
I'm not really saying that the argument is challenging religion. I'm saying that it is arguing against people using logic behind the existence of ? . Despite not really know if there is a ? or not, I am yet to have someone who doubts the existence of ? to at least say that the logic is sound. It like...the existence of ? argument is not about religion either.
Most here are arguing against the theist position which most religions hold. Truncating theistic religion doesn't help the ? argument. Creating erroneous scenarios that conflict with reality doesn't help either.
I did point out in a previous post that an unfortunate aspect of the argument that it is mostly the religious that hold it. But it doesn't mean that the argument supports religion. If anything, it means the religious are more in favor of the argument for an explanation for ? 's Existence than the religion they serve. It's like saying that because the cosmological argument is logically sound and true, then we should all worship Thor. The cosmological argument and Thor are two different issues. And you may not like the outcome of the answer, but it doesn't make it erroneous. -
Rubato Garcia wrote: »The Iconoclast wrote: »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. -
alissowack wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »alissowack wrote: »The Teapot argument does not make that challenge to religion (I added the additional claims). It is based on the role of evidence in our beliefs. As Trashboat mentioned Hume delved deeply into the subject while Russel's analogy is just a simple way to discuss it.
If someone claims there is a ? then they must provide sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to accept it. The atheist is under no burden to provide proof of ? 's non-existence.
I'm not really saying that the argument is challenging religion. I'm saying that it is arguing against people using logic behind the existence of ? . Despite not really know if there is a ? or not, I am yet to have someone who doubts the existence of ? to at least say that the logic is sound. It like...the existence of ? argument is not about religion either.
Most here are arguing against the theist position which most religions hold. Truncating theistic religion doesn't help the ? argument. Creating erroneous scenarios that conflict with reality doesn't help either.
I did point out in a previous post that an unfortunate aspect of the argument that it is mostly the religious that hold it. But it doesn't mean that the argument supports religion. If anything, it means the religious are more in favor of the argument for an explanation for ? 's Existence than the religion they serve. It's like saying that because the cosmological argument is logically sound and true, then we should all worship Thor. The cosmological argument and Thor are two different issues. And you may not like the outcome of the answer, but it doesn't make it erroneous.
My statements apply to the non religious as much as it applies to the religious that fall under the umbrella of theism. Their central claims are the same. It is that claim that I've been contesting this entire time because it is presented without evidence, and it is a grand conclusion based on faith rather then research. The additional drivel that religions present is only icing on the cake to illuminate the propensity to grasp at straws and abridge information to fit ones desires. -
Rubato Garcia wrote: »The Iconoclast wrote: »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 ? is blowing its hot breath all around us? Interesting. I didn't know Wind was a being. -
FuriousOne wrote: »alissowack wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »alissowack wrote: »The Teapot argument does not make that challenge to religion (I added the additional claims). It is based on the role of evidence in our beliefs. As Trashboat mentioned Hume delved deeply into the subject while Russel's analogy is just a simple way to discuss it.
If someone claims there is a ? then they must provide sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to accept it. The atheist is under no burden to provide proof of ? 's non-existence.
I'm not really saying that the argument is challenging religion. I'm saying that it is arguing against people using logic behind the existence of ? . Despite not really know if there is a ? or not, I am yet to have someone who doubts the existence of ? to at least say that the logic is sound. It like...the existence of ? argument is not about religion either.
Most here are arguing against the theist position which most religions hold. Truncating theistic religion doesn't help the ? argument. Creating erroneous scenarios that conflict with reality doesn't help either.
I did point out in a previous post that an unfortunate aspect of the argument that it is mostly the religious that hold it. But it doesn't mean that the argument supports religion. If anything, it means the religious are more in favor of the argument for an explanation for ? 's Existence than the religion they serve. It's like saying that because the cosmological argument is logically sound and true, then we should all worship Thor. The cosmological argument and Thor are two different issues. And you may not like the outcome of the answer, but it doesn't make it erroneous.
My statements apply to the non religious as much as it applies to the religious that fall under the umbrella of theism. Their central claims are the same. It is that claim that I've been contesting this entire time because it is presented without evidence, and it is a grand conclusion based on faith rather then research. The additional drivel that religions present is only icing on the cake to illuminate the propensity to grasp at straws and abridge information to fit ones desires.
Have you even studies the claims of monotheistic religions? Though they stress the existence of a deity, at it's core, they teach something very different from each other. And there is more to the aspect of evidence than what you can see, hear, taste, touch and feel. We can't measure consciousness but we trust that it's there. -
"We can't measure consciousness but we trust that it's there. "
There many ways to measure consciousness. In fact from a simple medical standpoint there are 8 different levels of consciousness. Even in the sense you are using the term my senses deliver massive amounts of evidence of my own and others consciousness. Evidence is entirely based on what can be perceived, either through our senses or our reason. -
FuriousOne wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »The Iconoclast wrote: »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 ? 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 ? , but I'd advise staying away from the theories that attempt to describe ? as simply an energy or force and not an actual being with unparalleled character. -
Being non religious is actually the most logical belief system
-
alissowack wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »alissowack wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »alissowack wrote: »The Teapot argument does not make that challenge to religion (I added the additional claims). It is based on the role of evidence in our beliefs. As Trashboat mentioned Hume delved deeply into the subject while Russel's analogy is just a simple way to discuss it.
If someone claims there is a ? then they must provide sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to accept it. The atheist is under no burden to provide proof of ? 's non-existence.
I'm not really saying that the argument is challenging religion. I'm saying that it is arguing against people using logic behind the existence of ? . Despite not really know if there is a ? or not, I am yet to have someone who doubts the existence of ? to at least say that the logic is sound. It like...the existence of ? argument is not about religion either.
Most here are arguing against the theist position which most religions hold. Truncating theistic religion doesn't help the ? argument. Creating erroneous scenarios that conflict with reality doesn't help either.
I did point out in a previous post that an unfortunate aspect of the argument that it is mostly the religious that hold it. But it doesn't mean that the argument supports religion. If anything, it means the religious are more in favor of the argument for an explanation for ? 's Existence than the religion they serve. It's like saying that because the cosmological argument is logically sound and true, then we should all worship Thor. The cosmological argument and Thor are two different issues. And you may not like the outcome of the answer, but it doesn't make it erroneous.
My statements apply to the non religious as much as it applies to the religious that fall under the umbrella of theism. Their central claims are the same. It is that claim that I've been contesting this entire time because it is presented without evidence, and it is a grand conclusion based on faith rather then research. The additional drivel that religions present is only icing on the cake to illuminate the propensity to grasp at straws and abridge information to fit ones desires.
Have you even studies the claims of monotheistic religions? Though they stress the existence of a deity, at it's core, they teach something very different from each other. And there is more to the aspect of evidence than what you can see, hear, taste, touch and feel. We can't measure consciousness but we trust that it's there.
Monotheistic religions are the biggest offenders. If we were discussing polytheism, then it probably would be less clear cut because of how they apply their Gods to various occurrences. All monotheistic religions believe in a singular point of contentious goal focused occurrence for the beginning of the universe and they add filler to how it interacts. How do you define consciousness? All of those things that you mentioned helps us to form and craft our consciousness dependent on external relative stimulation. If you had none of those things out the gate, you wouldn't have consciousness. You wouldn't be able to learn and you wouldn't have thoughts. You would die in a year. -
FuriousOne wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »The Iconoclast wrote: »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 ? 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 ? , but I'd advise staying away from the theories that attempt to describe ? 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? -
the nothing as defined by scientists is not the common usage that average people use. but even by that definition the universe cannot come from nothing for the reasons I already detailed
It would seem we are not certain on that
We do not have a full theory of quantum gravity
we can trace the universe back 13 billion some odd years but at a certain point we simply have no way of knowing what exactly transpired nor how it was initiated
It would also seem that if the birth of the universe marks the beginning of time, then whatever happened prior to it that led to the creation of everything we experience would have had to happen outside of time
which in is unintelligible imo
We could speculate about what it is that could be responsible for this
and if for reference sake we call it ? , it still does not establish any of the assumptions made in the OP
1) We see no evidence there was intention or purpose when the universe was created
2) Nor is there undeniable evidence of a deity which would render atheism illogical
3) There is also an issue where something which has always existed or created itself is more believable when it's deity rather than the universe itself. What evidence is there for the latter than the former, when both rest on an equally absurd assumption if contrasted to things we have observed?
The bolded should be the end of the conversation. WE don't have the information to say a ? exist or not. therefore using science to bolster one's atheism is not rational.
1) WE SEE NO EVIDENCE that there was not an intention behind the universe the universe being hostile to life is no evidence.
2) there is no undeniable evidence that any kind of deity does not exist.
3) the thing is we know that the universe had a starting point so we know the universe has not always existed. however the same cannot be said for a deity because we can not objectively rule out his existence using science.
people can decide to be irrational atheist but many atheist have to much of pride to admit this plus they like to feel superior to theist which is arrogant and foolish because when you get down to it both positions are not rational. AT LEAST THEIST ADMIT to not be objectively rational.
How is it irrational to say something can not be shown to exist when there is no evidence for it in over 2000 years of human history?
If it was true we would expect evidence
and it it was false we would not expect any
So given that there is none which stance is better supported by the evidence, or lack there of?
Assuming the conclusion is a fallacy, so right off the bat theism is illogical
In your example you stress the lack of information
Now this could be another fallacy if the argument is: We don't know, therefore theism
It's an appeal to ignorance
-
FuriousOne wrote: »alissowack wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »alissowack wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »alissowack wrote: »The Teapot argument does not make that challenge to religion (I added the additional claims). It is based on the role of evidence in our beliefs. As Trashboat mentioned Hume delved deeply into the subject while Russel's analogy is just a simple way to discuss it.
If someone claims there is a ? then they must provide sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to accept it. The atheist is under no burden to provide proof of ? 's non-existence.
I'm not really saying that the argument is challenging religion. I'm saying that it is arguing against people using logic behind the existence of ? . Despite not really know if there is a ? or not, I am yet to have someone who doubts the existence of ? to at least say that the logic is sound. It like...the existence of ? argument is not about religion either.
Most here are arguing against the theist position which most religions hold. Truncating theistic religion doesn't help the ? argument. Creating erroneous scenarios that conflict with reality doesn't help either.
I did point out in a previous post that an unfortunate aspect of the argument that it is mostly the religious that hold it. But it doesn't mean that the argument supports religion. If anything, it means the religious are more in favor of the argument for an explanation for ? 's Existence than the religion they serve. It's like saying that because the cosmological argument is logically sound and true, then we should all worship Thor. The cosmological argument and Thor are two different issues. And you may not like the outcome of the answer, but it doesn't make it erroneous.
My statements apply to the non religious as much as it applies to the religious that fall under the umbrella of theism. Their central claims are the same. It is that claim that I've been contesting this entire time because it is presented without evidence, and it is a grand conclusion based on faith rather then research. The additional drivel that religions present is only icing on the cake to illuminate the propensity to grasp at straws and abridge information to fit ones desires.
Have you even studies the claims of monotheistic religions? Though they stress the existence of a deity, at it's core, they teach something very different from each other. And there is more to the aspect of evidence than what you can see, hear, taste, touch and feel. We can't measure consciousness but we trust that it's there.
Monotheistic religions are the biggest offenders. If we were discussing polytheism, then it probably would be less clear cut because of how they apply their Gods to various occurrences. All monotheistic religions believe in a singular point of contentious goal focused occurrence for the beginning of the universe and they add filler to how it interacts. How do you define consciousness? All of those things that you mentioned helps us to form and craft our consciousness dependent on external relative stimulation. If you had none of those things out the gate, you wouldn't have consciousness. You wouldn't be able to learn and you wouldn't have thoughts. You would die in a year.
When I asked the question, I didn't mean it as way to disprove the attributes. I meant it as a compare and contrast between the monotheistic religions of the world. Christianity is not Judaism or Islam. The role that ? serves is fundamentally different from each other.
I'm not saying you can't have consciousness, but you can't measure it. Now...I will say I said this about consciousness I may have done it prematurely for if there is any truth to @whar post, then I'm wrong. But, the point I was hoping to make that there are things unseen to us that we don't question it's existence, but we know it's there. -
alissowack wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »alissowack wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »alissowack wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »alissowack wrote: »The Teapot argument does not make that challenge to religion (I added the additional claims). It is based on the role of evidence in our beliefs. As Trashboat mentioned Hume delved deeply into the subject while Russel's analogy is just a simple way to discuss it.
If someone claims there is a ? then they must provide sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to accept it. The atheist is under no burden to provide proof of ? 's non-existence.
I'm not really saying that the argument is challenging religion. I'm saying that it is arguing against people using logic behind the existence of ? . Despite not really know if there is a ? or not, I am yet to have someone who doubts the existence of ? to at least say that the logic is sound. It like...the existence of ? argument is not about religion either.
Most here are arguing against the theist position which most religions hold. Truncating theistic religion doesn't help the ? argument. Creating erroneous scenarios that conflict with reality doesn't help either.
I did point out in a previous post that an unfortunate aspect of the argument that it is mostly the religious that hold it. But it doesn't mean that the argument supports religion. If anything, it means the religious are more in favor of the argument for an explanation for ? 's Existence than the religion they serve. It's like saying that because the cosmological argument is logically sound and true, then we should all worship Thor. The cosmological argument and Thor are two different issues. And you may not like the outcome of the answer, but it doesn't make it erroneous.
My statements apply to the non religious as much as it applies to the religious that fall under the umbrella of theism. Their central claims are the same. It is that claim that I've been contesting this entire time because it is presented without evidence, and it is a grand conclusion based on faith rather then research. The additional drivel that religions present is only icing on the cake to illuminate the propensity to grasp at straws and abridge information to fit ones desires.
Have you even studies the claims of monotheistic religions? Though they stress the existence of a deity, at it's core, they teach something very different from each other. And there is more to the aspect of evidence than what you can see, hear, taste, touch and feel. We can't measure consciousness but we trust that it's there.
Monotheistic religions are the biggest offenders. If we were discussing polytheism, then it probably would be less clear cut because of how they apply their Gods to various occurrences. All monotheistic religions believe in a singular point of contentious goal focused occurrence for the beginning of the universe and they add filler to how it interacts. How do you define consciousness? All of those things that you mentioned helps us to form and craft our consciousness dependent on external relative stimulation. If you had none of those things out the gate, you wouldn't have consciousness. You wouldn't be able to learn and you wouldn't have thoughts. You would die in a year.
When I asked the question, I didn't mean it as way to disprove the attributes. I meant it as a compare and contrast between the monotheistic religions of the world. Christianity is not Judaism or Islam. The role that ? serves is fundamentally different from each other.
I'm not saying you can't have consciousness, but you can't measure it. Now...I will say I said this about consciousness I may have done it prematurely for if there is any truth to @whar post, then I'm wrong. But, the point I was hoping to make that there are things unseen to us that we don't question it's existence, but we know it's there.
Regardless of how they convey the nature of the being in each monotheistic religion, they all believe in a singular being. I'm saying consciousness couldn't exist without input aided through organelles and that right there is measurement of its limitation. You can also monitor brain activity which orchestrates those organelles. I ask again, how do you define consciousness? People argue over the nature of consciousness everyday B. -
the nothing as defined by scientists is not the common usage that average people use. but even by that definition the universe cannot come from nothing for the reasons I already detailed
It would seem we are not certain on that
We do not have a full theory of quantum gravity
we can trace the universe back 13 billion some odd years but at a certain point we simply have no way of knowing what exactly transpired nor how it was initiated
It would also seem that if the birth of the universe marks the beginning of time, then whatever happened prior to it that led to the creation of everything we experience would have had to happen outside of time
which in is unintelligible imo
We could speculate about what it is that could be responsible for this
and if for reference sake we call it ? , it still does not establish any of the assumptions made in the OP
1) We see no evidence there was intention or purpose when the universe was created
2) Nor is there undeniable evidence of a deity which would render atheism illogical
3) There is also an issue where something which has always existed or created itself is more believable when it's deity rather than the universe itself. What evidence is there for the latter than the former, when both rest on an equally absurd assumption if contrasted to things we have observed?
The bolded should be the end of the conversation. WE don't have the information to say a ? exist or not. therefore using science to bolster one's atheism is not rational.
1) WE SEE NO EVIDENCE that there was not an intention behind the universe the universe being hostile to life is no evidence.
2) there is no undeniable evidence that any kind of deity does not exist.
3) the thing is we know that the universe had a starting point so we know the universe has not always existed. however the same cannot be said for a deity because we can not objectively rule out his existence using science.
people can decide to be irrational atheist but many atheist have to much of pride to admit this plus they like to feel superior to theist which is arrogant and foolish because when you get down to it both positions are not rational. AT LEAST THEIST ADMIT to not be objectively rational.
How is it irrational to say something can not be shown to exist when there is no evidence for it in over 2000 years of human history?
If it was true we would expect evidence
and it it was false we would not expect any
So given that there is none which stance is better supported by the evidence, or lack there of?
Assuming the conclusion is a fallacy, so right off the bat theism is illogical
In your example you stress the lack of information
Now this could be another fallacy if the argument is: We don't know, therefore theism
It's an appeal to ignorance
Don't get tripped up in their argument. It's not a matter of proving their ultimate claim false. It's a matter of them backing up what they present as accurate. Atheism is an affront to blind faith.
-
And yet we have a wide spread belief that an entire Universe can be put into existence randomly.
Thing is.................
there are an infinite amount of universes.
