Why Atheism is Not Logical or Rational (no bible thumping)
Options
Comments
-
FuriousOne wrote: »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.
I can't prove a conclusion false by rejecting it's premises
That would be the fallacy fallacy
I can show how it is illogical to draw those conclusions based on the supporting arguments though
thereby highlighting the irony of this thread -
FuriousOne wrote: »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.
But there is more to it than that. If it was just that, then every monotheistic religion would agree. Theism doesn't just deal with the singularity. It deals with the will and intent of the deity which if you compare and contrast it the monotheistic religions, you will find that some do not match up. It's like saying a red apple is the same as a green apple. You see that they are apples, but ignore the colors associated with them.
The measuring consciousness thing...@whar already pointed that out that it can be done and I am yet to look into it. But if I have to say one thing...we may be able to measure consciousness, but we can't why there is consciousness in the first place. I was using the argument for consciousness to make a point about not knowing the physical attributes of something, but trusting that it is there. It wasn't to get into deep thought about what conscious is which is what you want me to do. Maybe I should have picked a better example. -
FuriousOne wrote: »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?
It's not that difficult man.
Atheists have the same evidence everybody else has - whether it's testimonial, circumstantial, physical, whatever - including all the religious writings, both uninspired and inspired. Atheists draw their conclusions from the available evidence and believers draw theirs. Get an understanding of spiritual things first, or not. Then either believe based on the available evidence or reject it, make your choice. -
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
Not believing in a logical possibility just because you lack information is irrational, and ? is a logical possibility it is also quite possible that an omnipotent ? simply does not want humans to have objective proof of his existence and could be actively trying to hide himself. I don't see why you think we should EXPECT to find evidence a ? would not have to leave any, except our existence i know our simply being ALIVE is not enough for you but really that's all there is and can ever be.
we don't know if ? exists or not but he might therefore theism is a valid possibility is the argument i am making and saying that it's not is irrational because we don't have the sum total of information needed to say a ? cannot exist. The only rational position is agnosticism.
there are too many problems with the scientific theories that claim the universe popped into existence and the eternal universe theory has been discredited. -
Not believing in a logical possibility just because you lack information is irrational
Saying it is impossible is, but saying that there is no evidence for it and therefore more preferable views is not? is a logical possibility
As is Russell's teapotit is also quite possible that an omnipotent ? simply does not want humans to have objective proof of his existence and could be actively trying to hide himself
Proof?
If you're going to believe anything that is possible contradictions are inevitable
Atheism is also possible
if your argument is all possibilities are logical then rejecting atheism is illogicalI don't see why you think we should EXPECT to find evidence a ? would not have to leave any
Why would there be no evidence for something that is true?
That is literally one of the only requirementsexcept our existence
How is this evidence of ? and not a flying spaghetti monster?we don't know if ? exists or not but he might therefore theism is a valid possibility is the argument i am making and saying that it's not is irrational because we don't have the sum total of information needed to say a ? cannot exist. The only rational position is agnosticism.
Theism posits certainty, not possibility
If all possibilities were to be believed in accordance to the evidence in favor of them theists would have to also accept atheism as equally believable, which would contradict their viewthere are too many problems with the scientific theories that claim the universe popped into existence and the eternal universe theory has been discredited.
No it has not been discredited
We have no working theory of quantum mechanics to do that
-
Not believing in a logical possibility just because you lack information is irrationalSaying it is impossible is, but saying that there is no evidence for it and therefore more preferable views is not
one view being more preferable or not is a matter of opinion? is a logical possibility
As is Russell's teapotit is also quite possible that an omnipotent ? simply does not want humans to have objective proof of his existence and could be actively trying to hide himselfProof?
If you're going to believe anything that is possible contradictions are inevitable
Atheism is also possible
if your argument is all possibilities are logical then rejecting atheism is illogical
i am not saying everything is possible only that ruling out things that are logically possible is an irrational positionI don't see why you think we should EXPECT to find evidence a ? would not have to leave anyWhy would there be no evidence for something that is true?
That is literally one of the only requirements
the problem for your position is that if there is a ? and that ? is omnipotent and if he chooses not to leave any evidence of his existence then it is impossible for you to find your requirements.except our existenceHow is this evidence of ? and not a flying spaghetti monster?
well, we know what spaghetti is and it cannot fly in fact ? cannot be anything we totally define him as because anything we can describe has in it's very nature a limit and the ? we are speaking of is omnipotent
so he literally cannot be in totality a flying monster of any sort.we don't know if ? exists or not but he might therefore theism is a valid possibility is the argument i am making and saying that it's not is irrational because we don't have the sum total of information needed to say a ? cannot exist. The only rational position is agnosticism.
Theism posits certainty, not possibility
If all possibilities were to be believed in accordance to the evidence in favor of them theists would have to also accept atheism as equally believable, which would contradict their view
all possibilities are not to be believed for what they are only the rational ones atheism would only be believable if it were rational but it's not unlike theism which can be rational or irrational.there are too many problems with the scientific theories that claim the universe popped into existence and the eternal universe theory has been discredited.
No it has not been discredited
We have no working theory of quantum mechanics to do that
science cannot escape an moment of creation because the universe is expanding we know it has a start point all the multiverse theories are basically thought experiments and the universe coming from "nothing" posits that the laws of this physics existed before the universe -
It's called a mirage. Or a hallucination. Especially after being stuck in the desert for days.
Hence the reason people believe in the fairy tale that is "? " it's just a mass hallucination -
-
FuriousOne wrote: »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?
It's not that difficult man.
Atheists have the same evidence everybody else has - whether it's testimonial, circumstantial, physical, whatever - including all the religious writings, both uninspired and inspired. Atheists draw their conclusions from the available evidence and believers draw theirs. Get an understanding of spiritual things first, or not. Then either believe based on the available evidence or reject it, make your choice.
Actually, scientist have presented actual evidence to their claims (which aren't the claims that they know what started everything) where as theist haven't. It is that serious when the world over has falling for the trick. There is no available evidence and i'm not presenting anything. I'm dismissing what is presented to me because it's a hypothesis with no backing and a grand conclusion based on no evidence. -
alissowack wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »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.
But there is more to it than that. If it was just that, then every monotheistic religion would agree. Theism doesn't just deal with the singularity. It deals with the will and intent of the deity which if you compare and contrast it the monotheistic religions, you will find that some do not match up. It's like saying a red apple is the same as a green apple. You see that they are apples, but ignore the colors associated with them.
The measuring consciousness thing...@whar already pointed that out that it can be done and I am yet to look into it. But if I have to say one thing...we may be able to measure consciousness, but we can't why there is consciousness in the first place. I was using the argument for consciousness to make a point about not knowing the physical attributes of something, but trusting that it is there. It wasn't to get into deep thought about what conscious is which is what you want me to do. Maybe I should have picked a better example.
It's more like saying you have a red and green apple in your bag, but i'm not going to show you. You should just believe that i do. It isn't the defining attributes of the characteristics that is at question, it is the ultimate claim of a central figure with characteristics or non if you so choose. The issue at hand is making claims and not showing your hand. That's cool in a game of poker. You have to define consciousness before you can measure it. It's why we can't identify what we would consider consciousness in other animals because they don't interact with the world like we do even though they communicate in their own language. -
Not believing in a logical possibility just because you lack information is irrationalSaying it is impossible is, but saying that there is no evidence for it and therefore more preferable views is not
one view being more preferable or not is a matter of opinion? is a logical possibility
As is Russell's teapotit is also quite possible that an omnipotent ? simply does not want humans to have objective proof of his existence and could be actively trying to hide himselfProof?
If you're going to believe anything that is possible contradictions are inevitable
Atheism is also possible
if your argument is all possibilities are logical then rejecting atheism is illogical
i am not saying everything is possible only that ruling out things that are logically possible is an irrational positionI don't see why you think we should EXPECT to find evidence a ? would not have to leave anyWhy would there be no evidence for something that is true?
That is literally one of the only requirements
the problem for your position is that if there is a ? and that ? is omnipotent and if he chooses not to leave any evidence of his existence then it is impossible for you to find your requirements.except our existenceHow is this evidence of ? and not a flying spaghetti monster?
well, we know what spaghetti is and it cannot fly in fact ? cannot be anything we totally define him as because anything we can describe has in it's very nature a limit and the ? we are speaking of is omnipotent
so he literally cannot be in totality a flying monster of any sort.we don't know if ? exists or not but he might therefore theism is a valid possibility is the argument i am making and saying that it's not is irrational because we don't have the sum total of information needed to say a ? cannot exist. The only rational position is agnosticism.
Theism posits certainty, not possibility
If all possibilities were to be believed in accordance to the evidence in favor of them theists would have to also accept atheism as equally believable, which would contradict their view
all possibilities are not to be believed for what they are only the rational ones atheism would only be believable if it were rational but it's not unlike theism which can be rational or irrational.there are too many problems with the scientific theories that claim the universe popped into existence and the eternal universe theory has been discredited.
No it has not been discredited
We have no working theory of quantum mechanics to do that
science cannot escape an moment of creation because the universe is expanding we know it has a start point all the multiverse theories are basically thought experiments and the universe coming from "nothing" posits that the laws of this physics existed before the universe
That starting point is specific to its expansion
that still does not tell us anything about its creation or what happened before
furthermore there is actually some evidence that supports multiverse theories, which completely fly in the face of theology
-
FuriousOne wrote: »alissowack wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »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.
But there is more to it than that. If it was just that, then every monotheistic religion would agree. Theism doesn't just deal with the singularity. It deals with the will and intent of the deity which if you compare and contrast it the monotheistic religions, you will find that some do not match up. It's like saying a red apple is the same as a green apple. You see that they are apples, but ignore the colors associated with them.
The measuring consciousness thing...@whar already pointed that out that it can be done and I am yet to look into it. But if I have to say one thing...we may be able to measure consciousness, but we can't why there is consciousness in the first place. I was using the argument for consciousness to make a point about not knowing the physical attributes of something, but trusting that it is there. It wasn't to get into deep thought about what conscious is which is what you want me to do. Maybe I should have picked a better example.
It's more like saying you have a red and green apple in your bag, but i'm not going to show you. You should just believe that i do. It isn't the defining attributes of the characteristics that is at question, it is the ultimate claim of a central figure with characteristics or non if you so choose. The issue at hand is making claims and not showing your hand. That's cool in a game of poker. You have to define consciousness before you can measure it. It's why we can't identify what we would consider consciousness in other animals because they don't interact with the world like we do even though they communicate in their own language.
But the point with theism is not to conclude which religion is "in the bag". If ? exist...then He just does...like if there are apples in your bag, then they just are. Now, if it just happen to be when a religion is "reaching in the bag" and find they are a match, then it just is. Now, this is only good if ? exist (or if the mysterious apple exist). But if so, theism tries to have an objective look to the concept of a deity. It's not geared to support Islam or Christianity or Judaism. -
Not believing in a logical possibility just because you lack information is irrationalSaying it is impossible is, but saying that there is no evidence for it and therefore more preferable views is not
one view being more preferable or not is a matter of opinion? is a logical possibility
As is Russell's teapotit is also quite possible that an omnipotent ? simply does not want humans to have objective proof of his existence and could be actively trying to hide himselfProof?
If you're going to believe anything that is possible contradictions are inevitable
Atheism is also possible
if your argument is all possibilities are logical then rejecting atheism is illogical
i am not saying everything is possible only that ruling out things that are logically possible is an irrational positionI don't see why you think we should EXPECT to find evidence a ? would not have to leave anyWhy would there be no evidence for something that is true?
That is literally one of the only requirements
the problem for your position is that if there is a ? and that ? is omnipotent and if he chooses not to leave any evidence of his existence then it is impossible for you to find your requirements.except our existenceHow is this evidence of ? and not a flying spaghetti monster?
well, we know what spaghetti is and it cannot fly in fact ? cannot be anything we totally define him as because anything we can describe has in it's very nature a limit and the ? we are speaking of is omnipotent
so he literally cannot be in totality a flying monster of any sort.we don't know if ? exists or not but he might therefore theism is a valid possibility is the argument i am making and saying that it's not is irrational because we don't have the sum total of information needed to say a ? cannot exist. The only rational position is agnosticism.
Theism posits certainty, not possibility
If all possibilities were to be believed in accordance to the evidence in favor of them theists would have to also accept atheism as equally believable, which would contradict their view
all possibilities are not to be believed for what they are only the rational ones atheism would only be believable if it were rational but it's not unlike theism which can be rational or irrational.there are too many problems with the scientific theories that claim the universe popped into existence and the eternal universe theory has been discredited.
No it has not been discredited
We have no working theory of quantum mechanics to do that
science cannot escape an moment of creation because the universe is expanding we know it has a start point all the multiverse theories are basically thought experiments and the universe coming from "nothing" posits that the laws of this physics existed before the universe
That starting point is specific to its expansion
that still does not tell us anything about its creation or what happened before
furthermore there is actually some evidence that supports multiverse theories, which completely fly in the face of theology
You accept speculation that seems to disprove the existence of a creating deity, but reject speculation that supports the existence of one. Interesting. -
Not believing in a logical possibility just because you lack information is irrationalSaying it is impossible is, but saying that there is no evidence for it and therefore more preferable views is not
one view being more preferable or not is a matter of opinion? is a logical possibility
As is Russell's teapotit is also quite possible that an omnipotent ? simply does not want humans to have objective proof of his existence and could be actively trying to hide himselfProof?
If you're going to believe anything that is possible contradictions are inevitable
Atheism is also possible
if your argument is all possibilities are logical then rejecting atheism is illogical
i am not saying everything is possible only that ruling out things that are logically possible is an irrational positionI don't see why you think we should EXPECT to find evidence a ? would not have to leave anyWhy would there be no evidence for something that is true?
That is literally one of the only requirements
the problem for your position is that if there is a ? and that ? is omnipotent and if he chooses not to leave any evidence of his existence then it is impossible for you to find your requirements.except our existenceHow is this evidence of ? and not a flying spaghetti monster?
well, we know what spaghetti is and it cannot fly in fact ? cannot be anything we totally define him as because anything we can describe has in it's very nature a limit and the ? we are speaking of is omnipotent
so he literally cannot be in totality a flying monster of any sort.we don't know if ? exists or not but he might therefore theism is a valid possibility is the argument i am making and saying that it's not is irrational because we don't have the sum total of information needed to say a ? cannot exist. The only rational position is agnosticism.
Theism posits certainty, not possibility
If all possibilities were to be believed in accordance to the evidence in favor of them theists would have to also accept atheism as equally believable, which would contradict their view
all possibilities are not to be believed for what they are only the rational ones atheism would only be believable if it were rational but it's not unlike theism which can be rational or irrational.there are too many problems with the scientific theories that claim the universe popped into existence and the eternal universe theory has been discredited.
No it has not been discredited
We have no working theory of quantum mechanics to do that
science cannot escape an moment of creation because the universe is expanding we know it has a start point all the multiverse theories are basically thought experiments and the universe coming from "nothing" posits that the laws of this physics existed before the universe
That starting point is specific to its expansion
that still does not tell us anything about its creation or what happened before
furthermore there is actually some evidence that supports multiverse theories, which completely fly in the face of theology
Most scientist think the multiverse theory is ? and even if it is real the problem still remains. how did the multiverse come from nothing the laws that govern any and all physics would have had to exist before any universe in a multiverse came into being -
Not believing in a logical possibility just because you lack information is irrationalSaying it is impossible is, but saying that there is no evidence for it and therefore more preferable views is not
one view being more preferable or not is a matter of opinion? is a logical possibility
As is Russell's teapotit is also quite possible that an omnipotent ? simply does not want humans to have objective proof of his existence and could be actively trying to hide himselfProof?
If you're going to believe anything that is possible contradictions are inevitable
Atheism is also possible
if your argument is all possibilities are logical then rejecting atheism is illogical
i am not saying everything is possible only that ruling out things that are logically possible is an irrational positionI don't see why you think we should EXPECT to find evidence a ? would not have to leave anyWhy would there be no evidence for something that is true?
That is literally one of the only requirements
the problem for your position is that if there is a ? and that ? is omnipotent and if he chooses not to leave any evidence of his existence then it is impossible for you to find your requirements.except our existenceHow is this evidence of ? and not a flying spaghetti monster?
well, we know what spaghetti is and it cannot fly in fact ? cannot be anything we totally define him as because anything we can describe has in it's very nature a limit and the ? we are speaking of is omnipotent
so he literally cannot be in totality a flying monster of any sort.we don't know if ? exists or not but he might therefore theism is a valid possibility is the argument i am making and saying that it's not is irrational because we don't have the sum total of information needed to say a ? cannot exist. The only rational position is agnosticism.
Theism posits certainty, not possibility
If all possibilities were to be believed in accordance to the evidence in favor of them theists would have to also accept atheism as equally believable, which would contradict their view
all possibilities are not to be believed for what they are only the rational ones atheism would only be believable if it were rational but it's not unlike theism which can be rational or irrational.there are too many problems with the scientific theories that claim the universe popped into existence and the eternal universe theory has been discredited.
No it has not been discredited
We have no working theory of quantum mechanics to do that
science cannot escape an moment of creation because the universe is expanding we know it has a start point all the multiverse theories are basically thought experiments and the universe coming from "nothing" posits that the laws of this physics existed before the universe
That starting point is specific to its expansion
that still does not tell us anything about its creation or what happened before
furthermore there is actually some evidence that supports multiverse theories, which completely fly in the face of theology
You accept speculation that seems to disprove the existence of a creating deity, but reject speculation that supports the existence of one. Interesting.
Radiation is not speculation
It's measurable and therefore objective
Furthermore modern cosmology is falsifiable
Much of these experiments are too costly to complete atm but theism offers no testable hypotheses, and seeing as secular theories continue to not only find verification but also contradict theistic accounts it's really a no brainer -
Not believing in a logical possibility just because you lack information is irrationalSaying it is impossible is, but saying that there is no evidence for it and therefore more preferable views is not
one view being more preferable or not is a matter of opinion? is a logical possibility
As is Russell's teapotit is also quite possible that an omnipotent ? simply does not want humans to have objective proof of his existence and could be actively trying to hide himselfProof?
If you're going to believe anything that is possible contradictions are inevitable
Atheism is also possible
if your argument is all possibilities are logical then rejecting atheism is illogical
i am not saying everything is possible only that ruling out things that are logically possible is an irrational positionI don't see why you think we should EXPECT to find evidence a ? would not have to leave anyWhy would there be no evidence for something that is true?
That is literally one of the only requirements
the problem for your position is that if there is a ? and that ? is omnipotent and if he chooses not to leave any evidence of his existence then it is impossible for you to find your requirements.except our existenceHow is this evidence of ? and not a flying spaghetti monster?
well, we know what spaghetti is and it cannot fly in fact ? cannot be anything we totally define him as because anything we can describe has in it's very nature a limit and the ? we are speaking of is omnipotent
so he literally cannot be in totality a flying monster of any sort.we don't know if ? exists or not but he might therefore theism is a valid possibility is the argument i am making and saying that it's not is irrational because we don't have the sum total of information needed to say a ? cannot exist. The only rational position is agnosticism.
Theism posits certainty, not possibility
If all possibilities were to be believed in accordance to the evidence in favor of them theists would have to also accept atheism as equally believable, which would contradict their view
all possibilities are not to be believed for what they are only the rational ones atheism would only be believable if it were rational but it's not unlike theism which can be rational or irrational.there are too many problems with the scientific theories that claim the universe popped into existence and the eternal universe theory has been discredited.
No it has not been discredited
We have no working theory of quantum mechanics to do that
science cannot escape an moment of creation because the universe is expanding we know it has a start point all the multiverse theories are basically thought experiments and the universe coming from "nothing" posits that the laws of this physics existed before the universe
That starting point is specific to its expansion
that still does not tell us anything about its creation or what happened before
furthermore there is actually some evidence that supports multiverse theories, which completely fly in the face of theology
Most scientist think the multiverse theory is ? and even if it is real the problem still remains. how did the multiverse come from nothing the laws that govern any and all physics would have had to exist before any universe in a multiverse came into being
Do you have proof that they do not support string theory?
Michio Kaku and Neil degrasse Tyson support it
That's also the same question you could ask of a deity: how did it make the universe from nothing?
Also you're appealing to ignorance, basically saying science can't answer that yet thus theism is validated
Which is illogical -
Not believing in a logical possibility just because you lack information is irrationalSaying it is impossible is, but saying that there is no evidence for it and therefore more preferable views is not
one view being more preferable or not is a matter of opinion? is a logical possibility
As is Russell's teapotit is also quite possible that an omnipotent ? simply does not want humans to have objective proof of his existence and could be actively trying to hide himselfProof?
If you're going to believe anything that is possible contradictions are inevitable
Atheism is also possible
if your argument is all possibilities are logical then rejecting atheism is illogical
i am not saying everything is possible only that ruling out things that are logically possible is an irrational positionI don't see why you think we should EXPECT to find evidence a ? would not have to leave anyWhy would there be no evidence for something that is true?
That is literally one of the only requirements
the problem for your position is that if there is a ? and that ? is omnipotent and if he chooses not to leave any evidence of his existence then it is impossible for you to find your requirements.except our existenceHow is this evidence of ? and not a flying spaghetti monster?
well, we know what spaghetti is and it cannot fly in fact ? cannot be anything we totally define him as because anything we can describe has in it's very nature a limit and the ? we are speaking of is omnipotent
so he literally cannot be in totality a flying monster of any sort.we don't know if ? exists or not but he might therefore theism is a valid possibility is the argument i am making and saying that it's not is irrational because we don't have the sum total of information needed to say a ? cannot exist. The only rational position is agnosticism.
Theism posits certainty, not possibility
If all possibilities were to be believed in accordance to the evidence in favor of them theists would have to also accept atheism as equally believable, which would contradict their view
all possibilities are not to be believed for what they are only the rational ones atheism would only be believable if it were rational but it's not unlike theism which can be rational or irrational.there are too many problems with the scientific theories that claim the universe popped into existence and the eternal universe theory has been discredited.
No it has not been discredited
We have no working theory of quantum mechanics to do that
science cannot escape an moment of creation because the universe is expanding we know it has a start point all the multiverse theories are basically thought experiments and the universe coming from "nothing" posits that the laws of this physics existed before the universe
That starting point is specific to its expansion
that still does not tell us anything about its creation or what happened before
furthermore there is actually some evidence that supports multiverse theories, which completely fly in the face of theology
Most scientist think the multiverse theory is ? and even if it is real the problem still remains. how did the multiverse come from nothing the laws that govern any and all physics would have had to exist before any universe in a multiverse came into being
Do you have proof that they do not support string theory?
Michio Kaku and Neil degrasse Tyson support it
That's also the same question you could ask of a deity: how did it make the universe from nothing?
Also you're appealing to ignorance, basically saying science can't answer that yet thus theism is validated
Which is illogical
there being multiverse is only one of the various theories that function under the umbrella of string theory string theory is really just an interpretation of information, there are many different string theories michio kau and neil degrasse tyson are popular scientist but them alone do not make up a consensus.
If you understood the concept of what a omnipotent deity was you would not ask such a question but there is actually an answer to that question. His will.
I am not appealing to ignorance i am not saying that just because science does not have the information that must means ? is real. i am saying that until science can disprove the possibility of there being a ? then rejecting a rational possibility as being impossible is irrational. therefore scientifically based atheism is not rational
if you chose to be an atheist for your own subjective reasons then that is different. I also reject the notions of strong or weak atheism
-
Not believing in a logical possibility just because you lack information is irrationalSaying it is impossible is, but saying that there is no evidence for it and therefore more preferable views is not
one view being more preferable or not is a matter of opinion? is a logical possibility
As is Russell's teapotit is also quite possible that an omnipotent ? simply does not want humans to have objective proof of his existence and could be actively trying to hide himselfProof?
If you're going to believe anything that is possible contradictions are inevitable
Atheism is also possible
if your argument is all possibilities are logical then rejecting atheism is illogical
i am not saying everything is possible only that ruling out things that are logically possible is an irrational positionI don't see why you think we should EXPECT to find evidence a ? would not have to leave anyWhy would there be no evidence for something that is true?
That is literally one of the only requirements
the problem for your position is that if there is a ? and that ? is omnipotent and if he chooses not to leave any evidence of his existence then it is impossible for you to find your requirements.except our existenceHow is this evidence of ? and not a flying spaghetti monster?
well, we know what spaghetti is and it cannot fly in fact ? cannot be anything we totally define him as because anything we can describe has in it's very nature a limit and the ? we are speaking of is omnipotent
so he literally cannot be in totality a flying monster of any sort.we don't know if ? exists or not but he might therefore theism is a valid possibility is the argument i am making and saying that it's not is irrational because we don't have the sum total of information needed to say a ? cannot exist. The only rational position is agnosticism.
Theism posits certainty, not possibility
If all possibilities were to be believed in accordance to the evidence in favor of them theists would have to also accept atheism as equally believable, which would contradict their view
all possibilities are not to be believed for what they are only the rational ones atheism would only be believable if it were rational but it's not unlike theism which can be rational or irrational.there are too many problems with the scientific theories that claim the universe popped into existence and the eternal universe theory has been discredited.
No it has not been discredited
We have no working theory of quantum mechanics to do that
science cannot escape an moment of creation because the universe is expanding we know it has a start point all the multiverse theories are basically thought experiments and the universe coming from "nothing" posits that the laws of this physics existed before the universe
That starting point is specific to its expansion
that still does not tell us anything about its creation or what happened before
furthermore there is actually some evidence that supports multiverse theories, which completely fly in the face of theology
You accept speculation that seems to disprove the existence of a creating deity, but reject speculation that supports the existence of one. Interesting.
Radiation is not speculation
It's measurable and therefore objective
Furthermore modern cosmology is falsifiable
Much of these experiments are too costly to complete atm but theism offers no testable hypotheses, and seeing as secular theories continue to not only find verification but also contradict theistic accounts it's really a no brainer
It's obvious you have bias. What theistic accounts do you speak of? Like I said every religion known to man could be absolutely wrong. That doesn't mean that the universe wasn't created with intention. There's evidence that supports creationism. You choose to reject it. It's not more complicated than that.
With every theory and scientific observation you choose to cite, there's holes in it. Science doesn't have all the answers currently. So you fill the gaps with limitations saying "we don't know but it's absolutely not a deity of any sort and it's not possible that it is." -
Not believing in a logical possibility just because you lack information is irrationalSaying it is impossible is, but saying that there is no evidence for it and therefore more preferable views is not
one view being more preferable or not is a matter of opinion? is a logical possibility
As is Russell's teapotit is also quite possible that an omnipotent ? simply does not want humans to have objective proof of his existence and could be actively trying to hide himselfProof?
If you're going to believe anything that is possible contradictions are inevitable
Atheism is also possible
if your argument is all possibilities are logical then rejecting atheism is illogical
i am not saying everything is possible only that ruling out things that are logically possible is an irrational positionI don't see why you think we should EXPECT to find evidence a ? would not have to leave anyWhy would there be no evidence for something that is true?
That is literally one of the only requirements
the problem for your position is that if there is a ? and that ? is omnipotent and if he chooses not to leave any evidence of his existence then it is impossible for you to find your requirements.except our existenceHow is this evidence of ? and not a flying spaghetti monster?
well, we know what spaghetti is and it cannot fly in fact ? cannot be anything we totally define him as because anything we can describe has in it's very nature a limit and the ? we are speaking of is omnipotent
so he literally cannot be in totality a flying monster of any sort.we don't know if ? exists or not but he might therefore theism is a valid possibility is the argument i am making and saying that it's not is irrational because we don't have the sum total of information needed to say a ? cannot exist. The only rational position is agnosticism.
Theism posits certainty, not possibility
If all possibilities were to be believed in accordance to the evidence in favor of them theists would have to also accept atheism as equally believable, which would contradict their view
all possibilities are not to be believed for what they are only the rational ones atheism would only be believable if it were rational but it's not unlike theism which can be rational or irrational.there are too many problems with the scientific theories that claim the universe popped into existence and the eternal universe theory has been discredited.
No it has not been discredited
We have no working theory of quantum mechanics to do that
science cannot escape an moment of creation because the universe is expanding we know it has a start point all the multiverse theories are basically thought experiments and the universe coming from "nothing" posits that the laws of this physics existed before the universe
That starting point is specific to its expansion
that still does not tell us anything about its creation or what happened before
furthermore there is actually some evidence that supports multiverse theories, which completely fly in the face of theology
You accept speculation that seems to disprove the existence of a creating deity, but reject speculation that supports the existence of one. Interesting.
Radiation is not speculation
It's measurable and therefore objective
Furthermore modern cosmology is falsifiable
Much of these experiments are too costly to complete atm but theism offers no testable hypotheses, and seeing as secular theories continue to not only find verification but also contradict theistic accounts it's really a no brainer
It's obvious you have bias. What theistic accounts do you speak of? Like I said every religion known to man could be absolutely wrong. That doesn't mean that the universe wasn't created with intention. There's evidence that supports creationism. You choose to reject it. It's not more complicated than that.
With every theory and scientific observation you choose to cite, there's holes in it. Science doesn't have all the answers currently. So you fill the gaps with limitations saying "we don't know but it's absolutely not a deity of any sort and it's not possible that it is."
Evidence in favor of creationism? What evidence, that weak argument from analogy? Nothing about that example proves a deity created the universe. The origin of an object is being assumed to be correct. Even then, what you assume is so vague it is arguably meaningless. Discerning people made the table is based on experience that people make tables, and if being lenient we assumed that this was true, nothing else about its origin could be answered. How long the table was there, who made it, when and where it was created would still be unanswerable. The example basically uses the most broad answer possible to prove itself applicable, but in the end this hurts it.
We also know humans make tables because we see humans make tables. We have never seen deities make universes, so to apply the same reasoning is illogical. Until that same kind of observational confirmation exists it's apples and oranges.
Everyone is biased. However, pointing it out is an ad hominem fallacy of relevance.
There is nothing inculpating a deity in these theories, and therefore no reason to include it, which is why it is being rejected. I desire being right more than anything, and if the reality of a deity presented itself I would accept it. Fact of the matter is there none. Same reason why I do not include myself in the origin of the universe: there is no evidence indicating I had any involvement. No evidence = no belief for it.
You want to talk about possibilities and play a probabilities game, let's do that. What are the odds the planet's smartest, best supported, and most rigorous researchers are incorrect and their antithesis correct? Add in the fact that theism has a history of impeding anything that contradicts it (cough heliocentricity cough), takes years and years to accept proven theories (Darwinism anyone?), and does not have the same credibility then the odds are highly in favor of science.
So let's recap:
1) Your metaphor failed. It does not prove your conclusion.
2) Nothing observed directly supports a deity
3) Religion has a history of presenting lies as truth, and does not have the ability to correct itself
4) It is more likely that scientists are right and religions wrong, based on ability and track record
5) Weighing the evidence in favor of atheism against that in favor of theism there is more for the former and since it directly contradicts the latter the latter is rejected
It is really not that hard to grasp
If A then not B
If B then not A
A, so then not B
-
Not believing in a logical possibility just because you lack information is irrationalSaying it is impossible is, but saying that there is no evidence for it and therefore more preferable views is not
one view being more preferable or not is a matter of opinion? is a logical possibility
As is Russell's teapotit is also quite possible that an omnipotent ? simply does not want humans to have objective proof of his existence and could be actively trying to hide himselfProof?
If you're going to believe anything that is possible contradictions are inevitable
Atheism is also possible
if your argument is all possibilities are logical then rejecting atheism is illogical
i am not saying everything is possible only that ruling out things that are logically possible is an irrational positionI don't see why you think we should EXPECT to find evidence a ? would not have to leave anyWhy would there be no evidence for something that is true?
That is literally one of the only requirements
the problem for your position is that if there is a ? and that ? is omnipotent and if he chooses not to leave any evidence of his existence then it is impossible for you to find your requirements.except our existenceHow is this evidence of ? and not a flying spaghetti monster?
well, we know what spaghetti is and it cannot fly in fact ? cannot be anything we totally define him as because anything we can describe has in it's very nature a limit and the ? we are speaking of is omnipotent
so he literally cannot be in totality a flying monster of any sort.we don't know if ? exists or not but he might therefore theism is a valid possibility is the argument i am making and saying that it's not is irrational because we don't have the sum total of information needed to say a ? cannot exist. The only rational position is agnosticism.
Theism posits certainty, not possibility
If all possibilities were to be believed in accordance to the evidence in favor of them theists would have to also accept atheism as equally believable, which would contradict their view
all possibilities are not to be believed for what they are only the rational ones atheism would only be believable if it were rational but it's not unlike theism which can be rational or irrational.there are too many problems with the scientific theories that claim the universe popped into existence and the eternal universe theory has been discredited.
No it has not been discredited
We have no working theory of quantum mechanics to do that
science cannot escape an moment of creation because the universe is expanding we know it has a start point all the multiverse theories are basically thought experiments and the universe coming from "nothing" posits that the laws of this physics existed before the universe
That starting point is specific to its expansion
that still does not tell us anything about its creation or what happened before
furthermore there is actually some evidence that supports multiverse theories, which completely fly in the face of theology
Most scientist think the multiverse theory is ? and even if it is real the problem still remains. how did the multiverse come from nothing the laws that govern any and all physics would have had to exist before any universe in a multiverse came into being
Do you have proof that they do not support string theory?
Michio Kaku and Neil degrasse Tyson support it
That's also the same question you could ask of a deity: how did it make the universe from nothing?
Also you're appealing to ignorance, basically saying science can't answer that yet thus theism is validated
Which is illogical
there being multiverse is only one of the various theories that function under the umbrella of string theory string theory is really just an interpretation of information, there are many different string theories michio kau and neil degrasse tyson are popular scientist but them alone do not make up a consensus.
If you understood the concept of what a omnipotent deity was you would not ask such a question but there is actually an answer to that question. His will.
I am not appealing to ignorance i am not saying that just because science does not have the information that must means ? is real. i am saying that until science can disprove the possibility of there being a ? then rejecting a rational possibility as being impossible is irrational. therefore scientifically based atheism is not rational
if you chose to be an atheist for your own subjective reasons then that is different. I also reject the notions of strong or weak atheism
That does not support your claim that most scientists do not believe in multiverse theory
Omnipotence does not answer the question
It's like someone asking how to do a slam dunk and you tell them be athletic
You are using an adjective you explain a verb
A character trait is a ? poor way to explain an action
Once again you are using broad language and vague detail to deflect the burden of proof by providing unsubstantial answers
Science discredits the claim's origin, proving true things that contradict religion
Rejecting things that have are not evidenced nor testable is not irrational
Our scientific theories are testable and built around the data we have
Theism is not -
Not believing in a logical possibility just because you lack information is irrationalSaying it is impossible is, but saying that there is no evidence for it and therefore more preferable views is not
one view being more preferable or not is a matter of opinion? is a logical possibility
As is Russell's teapotit is also quite possible that an omnipotent ? simply does not want humans to have objective proof of his existence and could be actively trying to hide himselfProof?
If you're going to believe anything that is possible contradictions are inevitable
Atheism is also possible
if your argument is all possibilities are logical then rejecting atheism is illogical
i am not saying everything is possible only that ruling out things that are logically possible is an irrational positionI don't see why you think we should EXPECT to find evidence a ? would not have to leave anyWhy would there be no evidence for something that is true?
That is literally one of the only requirements
the problem for your position is that if there is a ? and that ? is omnipotent and if he chooses not to leave any evidence of his existence then it is impossible for you to find your requirements.except our existenceHow is this evidence of ? and not a flying spaghetti monster?
well, we know what spaghetti is and it cannot fly in fact ? cannot be anything we totally define him as because anything we can describe has in it's very nature a limit and the ? we are speaking of is omnipotent
so he literally cannot be in totality a flying monster of any sort.we don't know if ? exists or not but he might therefore theism is a valid possibility is the argument i am making and saying that it's not is irrational because we don't have the sum total of information needed to say a ? cannot exist. The only rational position is agnosticism.
Theism posits certainty, not possibility
If all possibilities were to be believed in accordance to the evidence in favor of them theists would have to also accept atheism as equally believable, which would contradict their view
all possibilities are not to be believed for what they are only the rational ones atheism would only be believable if it were rational but it's not unlike theism which can be rational or irrational.there are too many problems with the scientific theories that claim the universe popped into existence and the eternal universe theory has been discredited.
No it has not been discredited
We have no working theory of quantum mechanics to do that
science cannot escape an moment of creation because the universe is expanding we know it has a start point all the multiverse theories are basically thought experiments and the universe coming from "nothing" posits that the laws of this physics existed before the universe
That starting point is specific to its expansion
that still does not tell us anything about its creation or what happened before
furthermore there is actually some evidence that supports multiverse theories, which completely fly in the face of theology
Most scientist think the multiverse theory is ? and even if it is real the problem still remains. how did the multiverse come from nothing the laws that govern any and all physics would have had to exist before any universe in a multiverse came into being
Do you have proof that they do not support string theory?
Michio Kaku and Neil degrasse Tyson support it
That's also the same question you could ask of a deity: how did it make the universe from nothing?
Also you're appealing to ignorance, basically saying science can't answer that yet thus theism is validated
Which is illogical
there being multiverse is only one of the various theories that function under the umbrella of string theory string theory is really just an interpretation of information, there are many different string theories michio kau and neil degrasse tyson are popular scientist but them alone do not make up a consensus.
If you understood the concept of what a omnipotent deity was you would not ask such a question but there is actually an answer to that question. His will.
I am not appealing to ignorance i am not saying that just because science does not have the information that must means ? is real. i am saying that until science can disprove the possibility of there being a ? then rejecting a rational possibility as being impossible is irrational. therefore scientifically based atheism is not rational
if you chose to be an atheist for your own subjective reasons then that is different. I also reject the notions of strong or weak atheism
That does not support your claim that most scientists do not believe in multiverse theory
Omnipotence does not answer the question
It's like someone asking how to do a slam dunk and you tell them be athletic
You are using an adjective you explain a verb
A character trait is a ? poor way to explain an action
Once again you are using broad language and vague detail to deflect the burden of proof by providing unsubstantial answers
Science discredits the claim's origin, proving true things that contradict religion
Rejecting things that have are not evidenced nor testable is not irrational
Our scientific theories are testable and built around the data we have
Theism is not
Great points. These are the reasons why I'm so agnostic some days, other days, I think maybe any creators the world ever had died
Do you ever think there's a strong possibility that there WAS some kind of creator or creators out there, that perhaps just died on like other organisms do? Because even the strongest atheist has to admit there appears to be some kind of design here on this universe, even if many of the designs are faulty and failed. -
Not believing in a logical possibility just because you lack information is irrationalSaying it is impossible is, but saying that there is no evidence for it and therefore more preferable views is not
one view being more preferable or not is a matter of opinion? is a logical possibility
As is Russell's teapotit is also quite possible that an omnipotent ? simply does not want humans to have objective proof of his existence and could be actively trying to hide himselfProof?
If you're going to believe anything that is possible contradictions are inevitable
Atheism is also possible
if your argument is all possibilities are logical then rejecting atheism is illogical
i am not saying everything is possible only that ruling out things that are logically possible is an irrational positionI don't see why you think we should EXPECT to find evidence a ? would not have to leave anyWhy would there be no evidence for something that is true?
That is literally one of the only requirements
the problem for your position is that if there is a ? and that ? is omnipotent and if he chooses not to leave any evidence of his existence then it is impossible for you to find your requirements.except our existenceHow is this evidence of ? and not a flying spaghetti monster?
well, we know what spaghetti is and it cannot fly in fact ? cannot be anything we totally define him as because anything we can describe has in it's very nature a limit and the ? we are speaking of is omnipotent
so he literally cannot be in totality a flying monster of any sort.we don't know if ? exists or not but he might therefore theism is a valid possibility is the argument i am making and saying that it's not is irrational because we don't have the sum total of information needed to say a ? cannot exist. The only rational position is agnosticism.
Theism posits certainty, not possibility
If all possibilities were to be believed in accordance to the evidence in favor of them theists would have to also accept atheism as equally believable, which would contradict their view
all possibilities are not to be believed for what they are only the rational ones atheism would only be believable if it were rational but it's not unlike theism which can be rational or irrational.there are too many problems with the scientific theories that claim the universe popped into existence and the eternal universe theory has been discredited.
No it has not been discredited
We have no working theory of quantum mechanics to do that
science cannot escape an moment of creation because the universe is expanding we know it has a start point all the multiverse theories are basically thought experiments and the universe coming from "nothing" posits that the laws of this physics existed before the universe
That starting point is specific to its expansion
that still does not tell us anything about its creation or what happened before
furthermore there is actually some evidence that supports multiverse theories, which completely fly in the face of theology
You accept speculation that seems to disprove the existence of a creating deity, but reject speculation that supports the existence of one. Interesting.
Radiation is not speculation
It's measurable and therefore objective
Furthermore modern cosmology is falsifiable
Much of these experiments are too costly to complete atm but theism offers no testable hypotheses, and seeing as secular theories continue to not only find verification but also contradict theistic accounts it's really a no brainer
It's obvious you have bias. What theistic accounts do you speak of? Like I said every religion known to man could be absolutely wrong. That doesn't mean that the universe wasn't created with intention. There's evidence that supports creationism. You choose to reject it. It's not more complicated than that.
With every theory and scientific observation you choose to cite, there's holes in it. Science doesn't have all the answers currently. So you fill the gaps with limitations saying "we don't know but it's absolutely not a deity of any sort and it's not possible that it is."
I agree all sides, atheists and theists, have biases formed for whatever reason. You seem to be a strong believer in a ? , do you think it's possible that this ? you believe in is possibly dead and died on, like other organisms? -
Not believing in a logical possibility just because you lack information is irrationalSaying it is impossible is, but saying that there is no evidence for it and therefore more preferable views is not
one view being more preferable or not is a matter of opinion? is a logical possibility
As is Russell's teapotit is also quite possible that an omnipotent ? simply does not want humans to have objective proof of his existence and could be actively trying to hide himselfProof?
If you're going to believe anything that is possible contradictions are inevitable
Atheism is also possible
if your argument is all possibilities are logical then rejecting atheism is illogical
i am not saying everything is possible only that ruling out things that are logically possible is an irrational positionI don't see why you think we should EXPECT to find evidence a ? would not have to leave anyWhy would there be no evidence for something that is true?
That is literally one of the only requirements
the problem for your position is that if there is a ? and that ? is omnipotent and if he chooses not to leave any evidence of his existence then it is impossible for you to find your requirements.except our existenceHow is this evidence of ? and not a flying spaghetti monster?
well, we know what spaghetti is and it cannot fly in fact ? cannot be anything we totally define him as because anything we can describe has in it's very nature a limit and the ? we are speaking of is omnipotent
so he literally cannot be in totality a flying monster of any sort.we don't know if ? exists or not but he might therefore theism is a valid possibility is the argument i am making and saying that it's not is irrational because we don't have the sum total of information needed to say a ? cannot exist. The only rational position is agnosticism.
Theism posits certainty, not possibility
If all possibilities were to be believed in accordance to the evidence in favor of them theists would have to also accept atheism as equally believable, which would contradict their view
all possibilities are not to be believed for what they are only the rational ones atheism would only be believable if it were rational but it's not unlike theism which can be rational or irrational.there are too many problems with the scientific theories that claim the universe popped into existence and the eternal universe theory has been discredited.
No it has not been discredited
We have no working theory of quantum mechanics to do that
science cannot escape an moment of creation because the universe is expanding we know it has a start point all the multiverse theories are basically thought experiments and the universe coming from "nothing" posits that the laws of this physics existed before the universe
That starting point is specific to its expansion
that still does not tell us anything about its creation or what happened before
furthermore there is actually some evidence that supports multiverse theories, which completely fly in the face of theology
Most scientist think the multiverse theory is ? and even if it is real the problem still remains. how did the multiverse come from nothing the laws that govern any and all physics would have had to exist before any universe in a multiverse came into being
Do you have proof that they do not support string theory?
Michio Kaku and Neil degrasse Tyson support it
That's also the same question you could ask of a deity: how did it make the universe from nothing?
Also you're appealing to ignorance, basically saying science can't answer that yet thus theism is validated
Which is illogical
there being multiverse is only one of the various theories that function under the umbrella of string theory string theory is really just an interpretation of information, there are many different string theories michio kau and neil degrasse tyson are popular scientist but them alone do not make up a consensus.
If you understood the concept of what a omnipotent deity was you would not ask such a question but there is actually an answer to that question. His will.
I am not appealing to ignorance i am not saying that just because science does not have the information that must means ? is real. i am saying that until science can disprove the possibility of there being a ? then rejecting a rational possibility as being impossible is irrational. therefore scientifically based atheism is not rational
if you chose to be an atheist for your own subjective reasons then that is different. I also reject the notions of strong or weak atheism
That does not support your claim that most scientists do not believe in multiverse theory
Omnipotence does not answer the question
It's like someone asking how to do a slam dunk and you tell them be athletic
You are using an adjective you explain a verb
A character trait is a ? poor way to explain an action
Once again you are using broad language and vague detail to deflect the burden of proof by providing unsubstantial answers
Science discredits the claim's origin, proving true things that contradict religion
Rejecting things that have are not evidenced nor testable is not irrational
Our scientific theories are testable and built around the data we have
Theism is not
contradict religion??? we are not talking about any religion the core of what we are talking about are concepts and their rationality or irrationality, you must be confused. i have no intention of trying to prove the existence of ? to you and what was so vague about my language??? let me say again
rejecting a possibility without good reason is irrational, because there exist no logical reason to reject it as a possibility. the mutliverse theories you seem to be so in love with are also unprovable therefore under your own twisted reasoning you should reject them as well but you don't why???? The theory of the multiverse is actually called the multiversal INTERPRETATION OF quantum physics or the many world interpretation. it's just an interpretation of information it has not been proven to be real and even if the multiverse exists it does not solve the issue of how everything came into being. There is a theory that says a universe is created when two universal bubbles collide with each other and maybe one day we will be able to find traces of radiation for these collisions but that solves nothing because if that's how new universes are created were did the first two come from?? it puts us right back to the something from nothing problem
omnipotence is not simply a character trait but if the question is how did ? make the universe from nothing the answer is he did not make the universe from nothing he made it from his will. -
? cannot be an organism because organism are created by the matter of the universe even if aliens made man those aliens would still not be gods they would be our creators but not ? .
-
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.
Table set could of just as easily been a mirage given the setting... an illusion of the mind... which is also fitting for this thread.
Problem with religion is that someone else gives you an even more fantastical story to justify why the table is there. And then another person has another, but changes the names and dates. And then another adds more people with more names and dates.
So now you got over 200 and more stories of how that table was put there. All of which is just somebody repeating what somebody else told them. Cause none of them have seen it created first hand.
Now it just becomes a question of which second hand reality helps you sleep at night.
The more logical approach would be to accept that you just don't know how it got there. Not make a up a story about it.
