CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
If we can pause the semantic nonsense for a minute, atheism is simply a rejection of the completely bonkers claim that there's a recognisably intelligent, non-human entity responsible for creating the universe and for whom a minority of humans (pick the minority) have a special significance. Atheism as a response is just as valid as ajabberwockyism.
It's difficult to parse what you're getting at. So, Atheism, the belief that there is no God or higher power, is illogical because . . . yeah, that's where you lose me. Is it really a response to religion? Atheist aren't atheist because people believe God, they're atheist because they believe in something different, just like Buddhists believe in something different.
No, it's a response. Atheists don't believe in whatever god/deity/ghost is being postulated. They don't necessarily believe in anything specific nor is atheism any sort of 'world view' as you can have communist, collectivist, Marxist atheists.
That's not true, an Atheist is not a "void" where beliefs do not exist. In almost every instance an Atheist believes in Scientific Materialism; in the postulates of scientific theory and their explanations of our Universe's cosmology.
Atheism is the belief in the scientific, rational, material basis of reality in conjunction with the rejection of any additional spiritual or supernatural entities or processes.
Some people believe in a science-based reality while holding on to some religious or spiritual beliefs, it is Atheists who buck the latter and base their conception of reality entirely on the former.
Agnosticism is the only logical choice. It is the only option that takes the total lack of evidence for any view and concludes that we have no way of knowing.
While I agree that agnosticism is logically sound, it doesn't directly answer the question of whether god(s) exist. It is very possible to be both an agnostic and an atheist or theist. Russell's teapot is designed to be unknowable, but most would feel it foolish to believe it exists. Thus one can be both an agnostic about the teapot (accepting that its existence is unknowable) and an atheist (believing that it isn't real, in light of the lack of evidence).
Agnosticism isn't exactly logical. It holds that it cannot decide between a point of view that has almost no strong evidence backing it and a view that has a huge amount of strong evidence backing it.
Or, it holds that it cannot decide between a position without evidence and a position stating that the former position has no evidence backing it up.
In other words, this is Agnosticism:
Theist: A magical, all-powerful being visited me yesterday and told me that when we die we go to a distant planet where we'll eat ice cream all day.
Atheist: I don't believe you, you have no evidence backing you up.
Agnostic: I can't tell if either of you are correct. I will therefor assume your positions are equally valid.
Atheist: But they could just make up anything that conveniently cannot be disproven!
Agnostic: That may be so, but I am sticking to my position that simply because you cannot die, find out if they are telling the truth, and come back to life to tell everyone what you saw (or didn't see)....I will go ahead and rule this one a "tie".
Atheist: So how do you function when you cannot choose a side whenever you cannot disprove what someone is saying, no matter how improbable?
Although, if the agnostic were smarter, it would not have said la la la la la la la. instead, it might say...
Agnostic: If the existence of something is extremely improbable, I will side against it's existence. It is very very unlikely that aliens from another galaxy have visited earth, but it cannot be completely disproven. I do not believe aliens from another galaxy have, to this point, visited earth. However, the existence of a higher being is not extremely improbable. Yes, the idea that we all eat ice cream in a field of white clouds is improbable--that is oddly specific. I am claiming nothing specific when I acknowledge the possible existence of a higher power. Higher power is a pretty broad subject.
Agnostics are only atheists without balls, instead of manning up and making a statement about themselves other than their spinelessness they decide to state a fact instead of a belief. God may or may not exist. WELL DUH! That's not saying much i suppose you don't think that science doesn't prove anything or that video camera evidence of evolution in progress isn't enough to prove that evolution, a theory that contradicts god is a fact!
Evolution does not contradict the existence of god, but rather the tenets of certain religious denominations. Or, more simply put, the word of the bible. The idea of a higher power and the idea creationism can be mutually exclusive, and, for many people such as myself, are.
This debate underhandedly tries to debunk atheism through clever word play. It is, at best, the equivalent of saying your refusal to believe in invisible pink munchkins is illogical. Logically provable, but an utterly useless stand point.
That's not true. The situations really are not analogous. A belief in invisible pink munchkins would be highly specific. A belief in purely a higher power would not be (and is not). No one is born with an inherent belief in invisible pink munchkins. Many humans are inherently born with a belief in god, or a questioning of his existence. The fact that such a questioning is inherent, and that you and I can speak of this inherent thing, proves a potential existence.
Belief in God per se isn't an inherent trait that one is born with, but rather disposition towards belief in supernatural agency. That is to say-- belief that intelligent non-physical forces are the cause behind many occurrences. This something that people are hardwired to believe. This belief has manifested itself into what we understand as God or Gods. The oldest belief is animism. Over the course of history, belief gradually shifted from:
Animism -> Polytheism -> Monotheism
However that being the case, I don't think this lends any credibility to such beliefs.
Atheism is illogical in the sense that any denial of god, whether of the weak or strong variety inherently appeals to ignorance. So atheism is literally illogical. But atheism certainly is rational. If there is no evidence present for some "thing" existing, then it's rational to disbelieve in the existence of that thing.
What a load of rubbish. Logic is all about using correct and valid reasoning. Evidence, observation, and all logical conjuncture points to atheism as the most logical reasoning.
"...any denial of god, whether of the weak or strong variety inherently appeals to ignorance"
Not when you consider, as God is unprovable and undisprovable, that the concept of God occupies infinite space. If God can be anything and everything, the moment you define God, you pluck one of the infinite versions out of that infinite space and into the finite regions. With infinite Gods to choose from, when you define God, logic (and probability) states that you are most definately wrong. So, the only logical thing to do here is to pick the most probablistic and evidential stance, which is that of Atheism.
That's just one single reason why you're wrong (One of many).
"What a load of rubbish. Logic is all about using correct and valid reasoning."
Yes and no. Not all logical arguments are valid, hence inductive arguments, which are sound or unsound and not valid or invalid. Validity only arises when we are considering deductive propositional logic.
"If God can be anything and everything, the moment you define God, you pluck one of the infinite versions out of that infinite space and into the finite regions. With infinite Gods to choose from, when you define God, logic (and probability) states that you are most definately wrong."
Unless you define god as everything existent, at which point you are definitely correct. The fact that one could hypothetically draw any definition of god into the semantic realm is ultimately a moot point to introduce here.
"That's just one single reason why you're wrong (One of many)."
I see what we're doing here really is squibling over the definition of logic.
"Validity only arises when we are considering deductive propositional logic."
You've taken what I said out of context. I talked about valid reasoning (which is different to a valid proof), which is exactly what an inductive argument is all about. I can use logical premises, evidence, observation, etc, to come to a logical conclusion about the existance of god. This is different to the validity of a formal proof which you appear to be talking about.
The point I'm making would be that through inductive reasoning, Atheism is a far more logical approach to take than believing in a god. To say that Atheism is illogical due to the lack of absolute evidence to negate the existance of god is, quite frankly, missing the point. I've made an informed decision, not simply chosen to be an Athiest out of ignorance.
"Unless you define god as everything existent, at which point you are definitely correct."
Why? It's another pinpointed definition which has an equally probable chance of being as wrong as any other definition of god. Allowing your belief to embrace all possiblities keeps it in the infinite space. Like I said, once you define it, probability states you're wrong (non-zero, but highly highly probable).
"Considering that I'm not, point them out."
You're trying to make the point that being an atheist is as illogical as believing in a god, and you are on that count wrong. There is no evidence for a god... none at all. I'm sure you're aware of how inductive logic could take the specific proposition "there is no evidence for god" and form the general proposition "there is no god." Then there is fuzzy logic, which looks at approximation of truth values rather than absolute truth. But this is all unimportant, because we're talking about real world logic, which as I said is about having correct reasoning (not formal proof).
Sure, you can say that by the standards of formal predicate logic, atheism is an invalid proof, but that's not how the world works. Logically, Atheism has FAR more going for it than belief in god.
"You've taken what I said out of context. I talked about valid reasoning (which is different to a valid proof), which is exactly what an inductive argument is all about."
The reasoning wouldn't be valid. It would be sound. I'm not taking it out of context.
"I can use logical premises, evidence, observation, etc, to come to a logical conclusion about the existance of god."
Logic itself is the rhetorical movement from premise(s) to conclusion. There is no such thing as a logical premise or logical evidence, or logical observation that can help you come to a logical conclusion. There are simply premises that have to necessarily support a conclusion in order for the argument to be logical.
"The point I'm making would be that through inductive reasoning, Atheism is a far more logical approach to take than believing in a god."
Put it to the test. Try to make a logical argument with the conclusion that god does not exist and I bet you I will be able to point out specifically where the non-sequitur occurs.
"It's another pinpointed definition which has an equally probable chance of being as wrong as any other definition of god."
Whether there can be an infinite set of definitions of "god" is a completely moot point. It has absolutely no value to this debate as to whether atheism is illogical or not.
"You're trying to make the point that being an atheist is as illogical as believing in a god, and you are on that count wrong."
They both are equally illogical, yes.
"I'm sure you're aware of how inductive logic could take the specific proposition "there is no evidence for god" and form the general proposition "there is no god.""
No, actually. Since we're making an existential claim and not one of temporal locality, the only conclusion we could come to is that since there is no evidence that supports the existence of god, x has no reason to believe in or accept the existence of god. You could not logically move from, since there is no evidence for the existence of god, god does not exist. That is logically impossible.
"Then there is fuzzy logic, which looks at approximation of truth values rather than absolute truth."
No, there isn't fuzzy logic. Not with the linguistics atheism and theism deal with. If you were running an engineering program, sure, fuzzy logic all the way.
"Logically, Atheism has FAR more going for it than belief in god."
Test it. Juxtapose two arguments, one that affirms the existence of god and one that denies the existence of god. One might be more rational or reasonable than the other, but it wouldn't be any more logical or any less illogical.
So, like I said, we're just bickering over what logic is. You keep taking what I'm saying and applying it to formal proofs.
"The reasoning wouldn't be valid. It would be sound. I'm not taking it out of context."
Once again, you're talking about formal proofs. I'm saying my reasoning is valid, not that I have a valid formal proof.
"There are simply premises that have to necessarily support a conclusion in order for the argument to be logical."
We're agreed on that point then.
"Try to make a logical argument with the conclusion that god does not exist and I bet you I will be able to point out specifically where the non-sequitur occurs."
...formal proof again. I'm not talking about absolute proof, as God has become such a wishy-washy concept these days that you can't do that. You moment you define god, he becomes disprovable. But when we talk about "well, anything can be god," we can only make rational decisions about the existance of god through past evidence and observation, not formal logical proofs. To say they are equally illogical, whilst maybe true in formal logic theories, isn't true in the real world.
Every time I touch ice, it's cold. I can take that premise and be reasonable in assuming that ice is always cold. I might not have a valid proof for it, but I'm working from past evidence, observation, etc.
"No, there isn't fuzzy logic. Not with the linguistics atheism and theism deal with. If you were running an engineering program, sure, fuzzy logic all the way."
I was using the example of fuzzy logic just to say that you don't always have to be either true or false to be logical. We can be more certain of some things than others.
We're obviously just bickering over the use of the world logic, so I won't argue this point any further. Formally, atheism is illogical as there is no formal proof against god because he exists in an infinate space. Define god, and he can be logically disproved. But in the real world, my reasoning is more "sound" than that of a believer in god. I'm taking a far more logical approach.
"Once again, you're talking about formal proofs. I'm saying my reasoning is valid, not that I have a valid formal proof. "
If you cannot present a formal proof, or even a proof at all, then you have no grounds on which your claim "my reasoning is valid" stands. Point: valid reasoning only exists in formal predicate logic.
"we can only make rational decisions about the existance of god through past evidence and observation, not formal logical proofs. To say they are equally illogical, whilst maybe true in formal logic theories, isn't true in the real world."
Here is where you concede. Maybe knowingly or unknowingly. We can only make rational decisions about the existence of god as atheists - and the real world that is all we are doing: making rational decisions about god, not logical ones.
"Formally, atheism is illogical as there is no formal proof against god... But in the real world, my reasoning is more "sound" than that of a believer in god. I'm taking a far more logical approach."
QED, I suppose. Atheism is illogical, but rational. That's all I've ever argued.
I can't believe I got down points just to eventually be agreed with.
You were agreed with with regards to what you keep saying (which is formal logic) but your assumption that rational decisions aren't equal to logic is, in regards to how I define the use of logic in the real world, in my opinion, wrong. That is the point I was arguing.
Formally, atheism is illogical as there is no formal proof against god because he exists in an infinite space
Formally, if every possible definition for god can exist, no god must also exist. Therefore god!=god, a tautology, and therefore false. Formal proof there is no god?
Whether there can be an infinite set of definitions of "god" is a completely moot point. It has absolutely no value to this debate as to whether atheism is illogical or not.
No it's not, if you can prove everything you have proved nothing.
If there is an infinite set of definitions of god, that set must also include that god is nothing, e.g. that set must also include the "no god" definition, therefore god!=god, which is a tautology, and therefore false.
If there is an infinite set of definitions of god, that set must also include that god is nothing, e.g. that set must also include the "no god" definition, therefore god!=god, which is a tautology, and therefore false.
This is not true. It is entirely possible to have an infinite set which does not contain every possible value. For example, consider the set of integers. Now consider the set of integers other than 0. Both of these are infinite sets, but the latter does not contain an element of the former. In the same way, even if the infinite set of definitions of "god" does contain "no god", a simple solution is to just take [definitions of "god"] - ["no god"] instead.
Keeping in mind that Xaeon's argument: 'if you define a god, it can be disproved', and the counter 'having an infinite number of gods is a moot point'; I was stating that it's not moot as it, being a tautology, means that you must define god(s), which can then be proved (one way or the other).
So sticking strictly to the lack of definition of any god: For each god in the set, there will exist one which is the exact opposite. This can ultimately be reduced to [gods, no gods] the two simply cancel each other out, therefore proving nothing.
You cannot therefore simply take out the 'no god' option.
Unless you start introducing caveats, the set is a tautology. If you start to restrict the set, you are also starting to define what a god can be. Xaeon's point is that as soon as you define a god it can be disproved (or at least shown to be irrelevant, IMO).
The point is that you cannot leave gods in infinite space and then say that it's illogical to not believe in them; additionally (Xaeon's point) any (relevant) definition of god is also logically incorrect and therefore belief in them is also illogical.
I agree that logic and reason are not the same thing, but for the sake of (this) argument, I would argue that they are synonymous enough that it does not make sense to deem something as being one, but not the other. Should've clarified that in the original post.
You're obfuscating the issue. We're not making any comparisons here. The issue at hand is whether we accept that atheism is illogical or not. But when we have a consideration: x, such that x is any issue for which there is neither affirmative or negative evidence, any claim about x must necessarily be an appeal to ignorance by virtue of the consideration: x.
An appeal to ignorance arises when any claim refers to any phenomenon with evidence of that phenomenon in absentia. Hence, any claim about god or gods, or goddesses - whether affirmative or negative - are appeals to ignorance. Atheism is illogical because it appeals to ignorance.
I'll give you that. I still don't see how you're deciding that it is both illogical and rational, though. My dictionary lists "rational" as being "based on or in accordance with logic or reason". If we've already decided that atheism is not based on or in accordance with logic, that leaves reason. And my dictionary, again, lists "reason" as being "the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic". Also "what is right, practical, common sense". I'm still not seeing how you could manage to come to an illogical conclusion based on reason.
Can't believe I'm getting down points for being right. God must hate my createdebate credibility.
But please don't introduce dictionaries. Dictionaries provide normative uses of words and depending on the skill and knowledge of the dictionary's lexicographers might not provide accurate uses. Moreover, I am positive that there is more than the one lexical definition in "your" dictionary for both "rational" and "reason".
However, that or-operator that "your" dictionary provides is rather important. The or-operator signifies that the term "rational" appears in accordance with logic or reason or both logic and reason. It also signifies that it is not necessarily the case that both reason and logic accompany rationality simultaneously. On the other hand an illogical argument can be rational; and we have immediate examples in Anselm's ontological argument and Aquinas' Five Ways.
We also have logical arguments that defy reason: all birds have feathers. Penguins don't have feathers, therefore penguins aren't birds. This is demonstrably wrong and betrays reason, but it's a logical argument. If you're "...still not seeing how you could manage to come to an illogical conclusion based on reason." I will explicate further.
Logic necessarily entails rationality or reason. But rationality does not always entail logic. A position can be reasonable or rational without being logical. And because we are dealing with supernatural claims, atheism can be a rational position in that denying the existence of something that has no evidence for its existence is reasonable (denial in the absence of reason to affirm) while also being illogical because we cannot make any necessary connection between our conclusion and our premises; we will always encounter a non-sequitur in the form of an appeal to ignorance. That's just the result of the claims we are making about this supernatural issue. Atheism is illogical and rational.
Firstly, penguins do have feathers, so that argument's not exactly the best example. Not to mention the fact that if there were birds without feathers, then saying that "all birds have feathers" would be a completely false argument. It would not be logical to state that all birds had feathers, if some birds did not. But thank you, because I'd never before gotten to post a link anywhere relating to penguin biology.
To me, you're essentially making the argument that any stance on a god or gods' existence cannot be built on solid logic, being as there is no solid evidence, which I agree with. But I tend to view "illogical" as meaning going against logic and/or reason, and being as there is no solid logic and/or reason on the side of believing in god/gods either, it doesn't seem to work.
"Firstly, penguins do have feathers, so that argument's not exactly the best example."
It's a great example of unreasonable logic. Logic is only concerned with how we move from premise(s) to conclusion, not what that conclusion is. I could concoct an outright lie of epic proportions and still make a logical argument to support that lie.
"But I tend to view "illogical" as meaning going against logic and/or reason, and being as there is no solid logic and/or reason on the side of believing in god/gods either, it doesn't seem to work."
But it does seem to work. You've admitted that here: "To me, you're essentially making the argument that any stance on a god or gods' existence cannot be built on solid logic, being as there is no solid evidence, which I agree with."
So, either you agree or you don't agree. Whether theistic claims have no logical foundation is irrelevant to whether atheism is logical or illogical.
No, it's still an entirely pointless example, because it was built on your mistaken idea that penguins didn't have feathers. You can't make a logical argument that penguins aren't birds based on the fact that they don't have feathers, because they do, thus invalidating your argument.
"No, it's still an entirely pointless example, because it was built on your mistaken idea that penguins didn't have feathers."
I know that penguins have feathers. Please don't make a habit of selective reading comprehension. I already covered this in the preceding posts.
"You can't make a logical argument that penguins aren't birds based on the fact that they don't have feathers, because they do, thus invalidating your argument."
"All birds have feathers. Penguins don't have feathers. Therefore, penguins are not birds" is a valid, deductive argument because the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. That's all a valid argument is. No one is claiming that it is correct. Again, I already went over this in preceding posts.
The fact that penguins have feathers only makes the argument wrong, not illogical. Wrong ≠ Illogical. Please don't respond until you have a firmer grasp of any form of logic. Would you like some free lessons?
I have a very firm grasp on what I would define as logic. I scored a perfect 800 on my SAT reading comprehension, and my habits are not your concern. And debating with you would be considerably more enjoyable if you were not so condescendingly pretentious.
It isn't condescending to call a rose a rose. You're not particularly versed in logic. That's a fact established by the way you explained the illogicality of the penguin argument. You didn't at the time - and may still not - know what constitutes a logical argument. So getting defensive and trying to puff up your SAT score does not affect the truth of what I wrote. Understanding words, phrases and the composition of sentences is not the same thing as knowing or understanding logic and logical thinking.
I have to teach this stuff in my critical thinking and creativity course to students your age (assuming you are 17), who are just as presumptuous as you are. So when I'm being lectured by sophomores about issues of language and proper thinking, I think I have an obligation as an educated philosopher and member of the American public to be a bit pretentious and condescending. I apologize if it's offended your dainty sensibilities.
I noted my SAT score only in relation to the comment you made as to my supposed "selective reading comprehension". Apparently we share that affliction. I would also note, in case it has escaped your attention, that you are the only one in this debate that has felt the need to depart from debating the subject at hand, in order to attempt to impugn specific peoples' mental abilities/grasp of logic. You have such a fantastic grasp of logic and reason, you shouldn't need to get into extended arguments with people as to their relative understanding of said concepts. Your arguments should speak for themselves.
Of course it's not my place to tell you how to behave, but being as you are involved in academia and an American citizen, it's my opinion that you have an obligation to keep an open mind and ear, and to be willing to learn from anyone, even those younger or in some way "below" you. To be make a habit of treating your students in a pretentious and condescending way would tend to shut you off from any possibility of some knowledge gain on your part. Also, some of my very close friends are a family that are very well educated (2 PhDs and 4 masters between the 4 of them), and which includes 2 current college professors. I have never seen any of them be the least bit condescending or pretentious—ever, to anyone. So you can't quite tell me that becoming a pretentious, condescending snob is an integral part of being well-educated.
You have not offended my "dainty sensibilities". But you have attempted to treat me as if you were my superior, without earning my respect.
Thankfully they do. The conclusion that is inherent to atheism does not necessarily follow from any know logical method. And its subject is impossible to deduce. It is therefore illogical on every level. This isn't about defining logic such that it's equivalent to reason, because you can reason well and use very rational argumentum and still be illogical. This is about whether the conclusion that god does not exist can be inferred logically. And it can't.
If you don't accept that basic fact of thought and Western language, and so far you haven't - as evidence by your original dissent, then I can only come to one conclusion: you don't know what you're talking about and this is out of your league. Not in the sense that it is above you, but in the sense that you're ignorant of the important, relevant information.
I have taken a step back. Read that and ingest it carefully.
People are born atheist? Wow, I'd like to disagree. And by whom are they convinced of believing in god? Others who believe in god. And by whom are they convinced? It leads back to, at LEAST, one original person believing in god. Given, that person was not born atheist, thus disproving the statement people are born atheists.
I think what this person means is that at birth, a baby does not have the mental capacity to postulate the existence of God. That by lack of belief, this would make the child an atheist according to some definitions of the word.
"Atheism" means: the theory or belief that God does not exist.
"Illogical" means: lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning.
"logical" means: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
Reason conducted or assessed via empirical validity would suggest that there is no god. The theory of there being no god, if tested via empirical means, would logically prove there to be no god in existence unless the popular meaning of god were different.
The belief that there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.
Yes, we should. It seems like there is a lot of misunderstandings going around.
The link below will bring you to a set of online materials for a logic class that I took at UCSD. The more salient lessons are: 2 (Arguments, statements, and recursion pg 4-5), and 13 (For appeal to ignorance, pg 1).
Basically, the point is that Mahollinder is right. At its core, Atheism is illogical because it rests on the claim that God doesn't exist.
The argument for Atheism goes like this:
1. There is no proof of God.
2. Therefore, God does not exist.
3. Therefore, Atheism is the logical religion.
However, the statement "There is no proof of God" cannot be proven or disproven: it is an argument from ignorance. You cannot logically use it to argue a position, because more often than not, you can use that same fact to argue the opposite point. Example:
The argument for God's Existence:
1. Nobody has proven that God doesn't exist.
2. Therefore, God must exist.
The whole debate over "logical" is also won by Mahollinder. If you read the second lecture, there are two parts to a deductive argument: Validity and Soundness. Validity simply means that the argument makes logical sense. His
example of "All birds have feathers. Penguins do not have feathers. Therefore penguins are not birds" is valid, since it makes logical sense. However, it fails the second test, which is soundness. Soundness means that all the premises (The statements you use to derive your conclusion) are all true. Obviously, penguins have feathers, so his argument, while valid, is not sound. A deductive argument must pass both tests of validity and soundness to be true, so his argument is overall false, although it does pass the test of validity.
Mahollinder is not correct, you have not proved that atheism is illogical, only that the argument "There is no proof of God." is an argument from ignorance. That doesn't, ipso facto, make atheism illogical. You are falling into the assumption that because one possible argument is illogical that the subject must then also be illogical.
As an atheist myself, of course I find my position logical; I'd be an incredible and rather special idiot if I couild continue to believe something that I found illogical.
However, there's one thing that could make deism seem more logical: Pascal's Wager.
It goes like this: "We cannot determine whether God exists by human means, but if there is a God, you gain a lot by believing, while if there is not, you lose nothing."
Certainly a rather logical position, from the position of game theory. I can't say that atheism is the only position with any logial grounds, but it's where I stand.
Pascal's wager only works if you consider there to be a single god and that you will gain by believing in him. The reality is that there are thousands of religions who all believe in a different god, and sometimes believing in a different god rather than no god at all is actually worse.
In reality, it should read like this:
There are an infinite number of possible gods. By defining a god you are plucking one of those infinite possibilities out of infinite space and into finite space, leaving a still infinite number of possible other gods. With this logic, no matter what god you believe in, you'll be wrong.
Yes, that and it assumes that there is some reward for belief or faith given by any particular god you go for; If Great Cthulhu were real, then by being a worshipper you'd get the amazing treat of being eaten first. I'm not actually a proponent of Pascal's wager, I'm just trying to stop this being so hopelessly one-sided. It's no fun if everything runs smoothly, so a spanner in the debate may liven things up.
Pascal's Wager also assumes that God is an idiot; otherwise you would be even more in trouble.
From the Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb:
"Pascal's argument is severely flawed theologically: one has to be naive enough to believe that God would not penalize us for false belief. Unless, of course, one is taking the quite restrictive view of a naive God. (Bertrand Russell was reported to have claimed that God would need to have created fools for Pascal's argument to work" (210).
Pascal's wager is not logical. If you are a theist and there is no God, it is false that you lose nothing. You have lead an entire life of delusion, as well as losing all those Sundays. Atheism is where I stand as well.
Hah! But if it god does not exist, you will never know, you'll be dead. Therefore, you will never know you wasted your Sundays. Let's say, hypothetically, one could know. The church-goers might be bumming, by how about theists that don't go to church? Just believe. What's wrong with a life-time of delusion, when that delusion makes one, overall, happier (theists are usually happier than atheists, other factors related to happiness notwithstanding)?
I am not an Atheist so do not act as though I am one. The debate question at hand is "Atheism is illogical" to which I replied with the first thing that rose into my cerebellum; Atheism is logical and Theists believe in blind faith.
I myself am a Deist. So I am going to break it off right here. And leave your question unanswered and ask you this; Which statement is true?
The statement below is false.
The statement above is true.
I believe it falls into the same category as your question.
Ahahahaha. The only logical statement that anyone can ever make about the universe and its origin is that they know absolutely nothing on an astronomic scale of that size.
Atheism is illogical. An Atheist must acknowledge the possibility that God exist in order to claim that he doesn't. One cannot take sides if there is only one side.
Atheism is likely the most illogical religion mankind has ever had the misfortune to have even if it is very insignificant, why do I say atheism is a religion, because it requires faith. Atheists like to believe theyre intelligent for not believing in God or if you want to sugarcoat it be skeptical, its when a person makes the illogical opinion that is an opinion being misused as a false statement "there is no god" it pretty much throws logic to the side and the only things that are personal feelings and imagination held together by anger or even hate, fuled by selfish intentions poorly masked as a twisted form of self rightiousness.
I have had the pleasure of winessing many atheists admit that atheism has nothing to do with science nor logic and that it is simply a belief like any other, what annoys me is that those same people come back a few hours later saying things like "religion is killing people, religion is illogical and atheism is science!" And the whole thing starts over again. I'm not going to bother taking the time to defuse all the atheist bullcrap however.
If any atheists here actually have the ability to think for themselves and actually want to believe in God rather than hate him, look around because there is evidence for him everywhere and I'm sure you've heard that before and didn't give it any actual thought, its true.
Anyway getting back to lolocaust, its really really sad when a person tries to use the old "the burden of proof is on you" defense mechanism because it doesn't work as I have said, there are many of these "scapegoats" that atheists use and they do so to try and confuse people so they can steer the convorsation away from weak spots.
Anyway, I respect people for their right to believe in whatever they want as long as it doesn't involve satan or endorse violence (don't get me started on the whole religious war bullshit, I've heard enough and have demolished hem before)
So atheists may want everyone to respect them and their little relgion, to stop bitching at people for believing in something different and assuming themselves as being more intelligent would be a good start, if you want people to stop bitching at you, you should set the example and if they don't, oh well.
Atheism is likely the most illogical religion mankind has ever had the misfortune to have even if it is very insignificant, why do I say atheism is a religion, because it requires faith.
Many things require faith; this does not make them religions according to most modern definitions. Of course, you didn't provide a working definition beyond "that which requires faith", which makes it clear that your statement is little more than an attempt to upset atheists—a fact which is made even more clear by the complete disconnect between this statement and the rest of your post, none of which hinges on atheism being a religion as you've claimed.
That aside, atheism, by itself, does not require faith, being as it is the absence of a belief in a deity. While some positive atheism does require faith, my experience with people who hold this belief is that they acknowledge that there is no actual evidence. I have yet to encounter a positive gnostic atheist: one who believes no deities exist, and that this lack of existence is really knowable.
Atheists like to believe theyre intelligent for not believing in God or if you want to sugarcoat it be skeptical, its when a person makes the illogical opinion that is an opinion being misused as a false statement "there is no god" it pretty much throws logic to the side and the only things that are personal feelings and imagination held together by anger or even hate, fuled by selfish intentions poorly masked as a twisted form of self rightiousness.
I'm not entirely certain what you're saying here, but as a positive agnostic atheist I can tell you that my beliefs do not derive from anger, which I rarely experience, or hate, which I don't have. Nor am I aware of any selfish intentions or self-righteousness in my actions or motivations. I simply believe that there is no deity.
If any atheists here actually have the ability to think for themselves and actually want to believe in God rather than hate him, look around because there is evidence for him everywhere and I'm sure you've heard that before and didn't give it any actual thought, its true.
I would love to believe in God, as doing so would certainly make life easier. However, I can find no evidence to support such a being's existence, and the notion of transcendentalism is a (very) poor substitute. Furthermore, I don't "hate" God; that would be illogical, given my lack of belief in it.
Anyway getting back to lolocaust, its really really sad when a person tries to use the old "the burden of proof is on you" defense mechanism because it doesn't work as I have said, there are many of these "scapegoats" that atheists use and they do so to try and confuse people so they can steer the convorsation away from weak spots.
This is simply not true. If you are going to make a positive claim, the burden of proof is on you to support that claim. Failure to provide such proof, including the decision not to provide it because you accept the claim on faith, gives others a free-rein to dismiss your claim without consideration.
Atheism is just as illogical as religion. Both positions make the claim that they definitively know the truth, but neither can actually back it up. It's arrogant to claim you know the truth about the universe, because you can't.
Agnosticism is the only sensible choice, as it admits that the big questions are too big for us to answer. The truth is out of our range, and you can have ideas about it, but to have a definitive stance regarding God's existence and nature is just plain silly.
It's just as arrogant to believe definitively in God and allow no room for doubt that you may be wrong as it is to disbelieve definitively and allow no room for error in the opposite direction. Afterall, to err is human.
Atheism is just as illogical as religion. Both positions make the claim that they definitively know the truth, but neither can actually back it up. It's arrogant to claim you know the truth about the universe, because you can't.
Atheism is not the position that deities certainly do not exist. While some atheists take this position, that is a belief beyond the basic tenets of atheism.
Agnosticism is the only sensible choice, as it admits that the big questions are too big for us to answer. The truth is out of our range, and you can have ideas about it, but to have a definitive stance regarding God's existence and nature is just plain silly.
Agnosticism is not an alternative to atheism or theism, but rather an answer to a different, albeit related, question—is it possible to know whether or not god exists. One can be an agnostic atheist (which is what most people who claim to be agnostic really are) or an agnostic theist, just as one can be a gnostic atheist or a gnostic theist.
Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]Atheism as defined by Wikipedia
I agree with the way you've defined agnosticism, as the stance that a certain thing is unknown or possibly unknowable, but I'm not sure where your definition of atheism comes from.
How can an atheist believe in a deity? If atheism is not defined strictly as the absence of belief in a deity, what are the basic tenets of atheism in your opinion?
If atheism is not defined strictly as the absence of belief in a deity, what are the basic tenets of atheism in your opinion?
It is defined as the absence of belief in a deity, but the absence of belief is not the belief of absence. That is, one can lack belief in a deity without believing that no deities exist; this is the difference between weak atheism and strong atheism (also called positive atheism).
I should think that the only way one could really claim to fit the weak atheist category would be if they had not been introduced to the idea of a deity. Once you have been introduced, then the absence of belief either must be the belief of absence or agnosticism by another word.
For instance, assuming there's a person unexposed to the idea of a deity, who thusly lacks belief, he/she would be able to claim the absence of belief without necessitating the belief of absence.
But, if someone has been introduced to the idea of God, but chooses not to believe, then that person must believe in the non-existence of that deity. There are truly only three possibilities for that person. He/she can either choose to believe in the deity, choose not to believe, or choose to be undecided as it is unknown/unknowable. He/she cannot argue to not believe in God but also not believe in the absence of God at the same time, as the choice to not believe is inherently tied to the rejection of that deity.
The absence of belief without the belief of absence seems like agnosticism, not atheism.
I should think that the only way one could really claim to fit the weak atheist category would be if they had not been introduced to the idea of a deity. Once you have been introduced, then the absence of belief either must be the belief of absence or agnosticism by another word.
Agnostic atheism is often a weak form of atheism, though it is not necessary for an agnostic atheist to support the weak perspective.
In essence, Theism/Atheism is a binary choice: "Do you believe in a deity." If the answer is yes, you are a theist. If the answer is no, you are an atheist. Most people who claim to be "agnostic" are actually espousing a weak agnostic atheism; it's just that the word "atheist" has developed something of a negative connotation, so people dislike having that term apply to them.
The absence of belief without the belief of absence seems like agnosticism, not atheism.
You missed the part where agnostic/gnostic is a different axis than atheism/theism. As I said, weak atheism is often, though not necessarily, coupled with agnosticism. I have met gnostic weak atheists—people who claim that it is possible, in principle, to decide the matter of a deity's existence, and admit to the possibility that a deity exists, but feel that the evidence with which they have been presented is not sufficient for them to decide either way. As such, they do not believe the assertion "A deity exists", nor do they believe the assertion "No deities exist". They choose "I don't believe that a deity exists, but it's possible", which is the weak atheist position.
You say that "no one knows the truth". That's a contradicting statement.
So you're telling me that you absolutely and truthfully know that "no one knows the truth"???
You also say that its arrogant to say that God exists?? Atheism is a minority in comparison to the entire world! You guys are a small bunch but yet you know the the truth? Now how arrogant can you possibly get??
I'd assumed that the people on this website might have the intellectual capacity to use reason and logic rather than name calling and insulting. Really, hercules? Grow up.
I just discovered all this, and I joined to make only the following comments (and I won't be back):
1. Do you really think this argument is worth having? Who cares? What difference does it make? In an agnostic kind of way, you'll never know who's right - and more importantly, you'll never change anyone's mind. So basically, you're all wasting your time.
2. Hercules is so mean-spirited and foul-mouthed that if there is a god, his (Hercules', not god's) long-term future is dim. I suggest a change of attitude. It would be the smart thing to do.
The point of this argument is to persuade the casual weak opinionated passerby with words of logic. We're not wasting our time and I'm glad you won't be back as your unintelligent ass-drippings are not wanted here, also pointing out the stupidities of Christians and agnostics is just fun. I see while you only joined to make this post you took the time to change your profile picture to a peace sign, you tree-hugging stupid ass fucking hippie.
The belief in something without evidence is the same as not believing in something without evidence. If Atheism is illogical, then you must conclude that Theism is illogical. I think the only logical conclusion here is that this thread is illogical.
Before deciding that God is illogical, you may want to look into paranormal phenomenon (indirectly looking for God). There is unofficial evidence for a supernatural component to reality. To add to the old prime mover arguments, let me remind you that God cannot have a creator, since God exists outside of time, and that that exists outside of time cannot have a point of origin. Honestly, an awareness of God seems to be a part of an intelligent mind, and just about every single human society throughout history believed in something in "The God Department".
Before deciding that God is illogical, you may want to look into paranormal phenomenon (indirectly looking for God). There is unofficial evidence for a supernatural component to reality. To add to the old prime mover arguments, let me remind you that God cannot have a creator, since God exists outside of time, and that that exists outside of time cannot have a point of origin. Honestly, an awareness of God seems to be a part of an intelligent mind, and just about every single human society throughout history believed in something in "The God Department".
Well, I'm not necessarily trying to convince anyone but here's my perspective on the situation. I am in full agreement with agnosticism at the moment, because at this time we cannot supply a logical argument if God exists or not. However, I still believe that there is a creator--not the Judeo-Christian God. So far scientists have theorized that evolution created us and have proven that it takes matter and energy to make about anything (the two can make each other.) What I believe is that our creator started this process which in turn created everything that is. A common atheistic argument is "it is". Personally, I could not comprehend how all of this was a random process, and to me, that is about as logical as the belief in God. Now the religious folks have something unique: faith. A true theist realizes that they do not have any form of evidence, because in the end it is about what YOU believe.
Please PLEASE SPARE ME this Atheism is the only right way to life ,I mean all these crusades wars from religion. If they were all atheist lives could've been spared.
Please PLEASE SPARE ME this Atheism is the only right way to life ,I mean all these crusades wars from religion. If they were all atheist lives could've been spared.
There are actually plenty of things that atheists believe, and many things to discuss. Science, philosophy, art, etc are all subjects. A major one these days is education, and how to help the superstitious citizens of our country realize that believing in unicorns and gods is irrational and helping them embrace reality. Trust me, there's plenty to discuss! ;)
to be honest atheism makes more sense than any religion. Its the only fact based way of explaining the universe. I mean i can point out one major plot hole in any god based religion. if god created everything who created god? and is there any hard evidnce that god is real?
an atheist is anyone who doesn't believe in a god, in this sense of logic an agnostic can be defighned by atheism no matter how open to the possibility they are. I find it funny response, its "god may or may not exist" obviously atheists never disagreed with that, but that doesn't answer the question of wheather or not you believe or not believe in a god. If you believe in a god your a theist, if you don't your an atheist, its that simple. A is a prefix for not; without, theism is a belief in god, A+theism= not;without belief in god. agnostics in my book are all technically atheists wheather they realize it or not, or label themselves as such. a lack of belief or simply not believing does not need any justification, however if a belief is to be considered logicall it needs proper justification. agnostics lack a belief in a god therefore they are "without belief in a god"=atheism or "not a belief in a god"= atheism. atheism covers anything thats not a theist. like fiction and NONfiction or blue and NONblue, anything that is not blue wheather it be red, orange, green, yellow, etc. is NOT blue. anyone that does not believe in a god, wheather agnostic, nonreligous, or whatever is an atheist by defenition.
I shall keep within the bounds of the debate topic.
If we are to be purely logical then we must be agnostic. As per the work of Godel, we know that formal logic cannot produce either: (1) all truth, or (2) justifiable truth. That is, logic either won't tell us everything, or it we can't trust it.
Now, take the idea of scepticism. It is not logical. It is a device employed by logicians (in fact most effectively by the theist Descartes). However it is not logically justified. As an axiom it is unsupported, so everything on top of it is moot. Scepticism has pragmatic usefulness but it is not logical.
And, only scepticism can lead one to atheism. Because the other logical root to atheism is a universal negative proof: which requires omniscience, which would qualify one to be a god (of sorts). Only god can disprove God.
The theist has it simpler, the theist needs only one instance of God to prove Him.
Atheism has failed to produce the necessary universal disproof; theism has failed to provide the logical proof: agnosticism.
"All I know is that I know nothing" - Plato (Socrates)
I was raised a catholic and attended a former boys seminary for secondary school. My experiences have turned me into a failry strange person. I dont have many friends and i find dealing with people difficult so ive always been interested in death and what more is out there. I have a masters degree in engineering and have been interested in science most of life so you might think im wither an agnostic now or else an athiest but im neither. I have subsribed to both these views one after the other 1st agnosticism then athiesm. I am now a panthiest and i doubt it will change for the remainder of my life. I want to quote a famous mythologist Joseph Campbell: "Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies." That basaically sums it up. For anyone who bothered to read this i strongly urge you to study Alan Watts, can assure you if you do you'll be panthiest in no time.
Agnosticism is the logical response to a claim that doesn't supply enough evidence to justify belief. Agnosticism (without knowledge) is based off of what we know. When a person makes a claim that does not have evidence, then we don't know whether the object claimed really exists. In this case, the rational response is to be agnostic about whether we know if the object exists or not.
Atheism comes into play for most atheists when we are asked what we believe about god(s). For most, when claiming to be an atheist, it is a weak atheism which says we haven't been presented with enough proof to justify belief in a god. Thus, there is no rational reason to go about one's life believing in a god.
Many people claim that they have seen a fairy. Their evidence is sketchy, and very subjective. The rational response is that while we can't prove whether they exist or not, since we haven't looked everywhere, we do not believe in them. Most people do not live their lives with the belief that they exist and tiptoe around hoping not to offend them. This would be ridiculous.
Agnosticism is a statement of what we know, and atheism is a statement of what we believe. These are the only rational responses if evidence has not been provided to establish the existence of a god and justification of belief.
If logic is ontologically immaterial (a abstract reality) and atheism is, by definition, materialistic (a purely concrete reality). Then atheism denies the reality of things it affirms and is therefore a self refuting position. In other words atheism is illogical.
Please come back everyone atheists and whatever specially Christians.
Why have everyone stopped posting here?
The topic is "Atheism is illogical," which means that atheists are illogical, who say that? but atheists are saying that Christians are irrational which means also illogical.
Now, suppose we use instead of the words irrational and illogical the word "intelligent" the opposite of which is unintelligent.
Now, what is intelligent the adjective?
Without defining what is intelligent the adjective, I guess we can all see some action or behavior of a human to be intelligent or unintelligent without being able to verbalize what is intelligence.
Of course atheists say that Christians are not intelligent, and they say that IQ tests of atheists disclose that atheists have higher IQ scores than Christians.
Let that pass, however.
Let us instead everyone agree to answer this question from each one's intelligence:
Which answer is intelligent to this question:
"The observable universe ultimately came about from 1. God, 2. itself, 3. randomness, 4. nothing, 5. infinite regression, 6. I don't know, 7. It always exists.
Remember, just answer as from an intelligent human.
If you don't know what is meant by the word God, then if you are aware that Christians believe in the existence of God, I think you must try to know correctly what is the most crucial concept of God in the Christian faith in God's fundamental relation to the universe.
Atheism is a non belief system thus logical.Why should one be forced socially to believe in something that never has been proven as a reality,that being a god? We need to believe in what we individually accomplish or not accomplish as humans.So logically when we plan for something that works out in our lives it is only ourselves that accomplish or not accomplish this feat,and should only thank ourselves for this accomplishment,and not attribute it to some outside source.If one prays or not, the outcome is the same.If one is serene in their lives and realize that the future is not planned for them and then life becomes easier for them.It is like a meditation without being judged.Morality is not a religious thing,but a human thing,it is in our being,as humans.
It depends on which part...in regards to cosmology, yes.
#1.
The belief that nothing created everything is pretty retarded. Anyone, religious or non-religious, that believes that is insane. I don't care what ivy university you graduated from its still insane to believe that.
Believing in a "talking snake" is less stupid than the belief that "nothing eventually created the humans who wrote about that talking snake"
#2.
A lot of atheist tend to side with science. Scientific method is based on observation, testing, and retesting. No one observed the universe being created, we can't test it, and we will never be able to test it so now a scientific explanation is rendered useless and it now demands a philosophical explanation. However, science presupposes logic and philosophy. It's not a matter of science vs. religion, its a matter of good science vs. bad science.
#3.
Also science points out that the universe, consisting of time, space, and matter was created meaning that the natural laws in science we use were created.
We CAN NOT use a natural explanation to explain its own origin if nature wasn't even created yet so we must go outside the domain of the natural that is not bounded by time, matter, and space. That now requires a super-natural explanation.
#4. We know the infallible truth that non-intelligence CAN NOT create intelligence. Only intelligence can create intelligence and an intelligent product is a sign of intelligence. That's pretty #$%&ing;stupid to believe otherwise. That contradicts reasoning itself. Now here is a double edge sword: If atheist considers themselves intelligent then obviously that potential was created from an intelligent agent. However if they believe that a non-intelligent source started it all, then why should they believe what their brain, the most intelligent organ, tells them at all????
#5.
Furthermore, the big bang started it all. The big bang is an explosion but as we have scientifically observed, tested, and retested, we know that explosions, bangs, and chaos DO NOT produce design, order, and complexity. That is 100% factual and consistent in our natural universe. To say it does is pretty stupid.
#6.
Last but not least, atheist will substitute what they do not know with "chance" as the cause. That is illogical. In "this" natural dimension there is always a cause for everything. Chance is not a cause. We might have a 50/50 chance for heads or tails in a coin but nonetheless it still had a cause. Objectively that "cause" was due to several variables: me willingly moving my hands with a certain amount of force and from friction. So chance is never is a cause. Chance is what rocks dream.
The Big Bang Theory does not posit that the universe came of nothingness. Part of the Big Bang Theory is that it's not singular, it's one bang in many, and the collapse and expansion of the universe are cyclical. The way I look at it is we "start" with all matter condensed into its smallest configuration, which must expand (the big bang). Entropy takes its course ever more slowly, until all matter has occupied its largest possible area. At that point, the universe must contract the matter into its center, until it is once again compressed. Another big bang. Cyclical exertions of gravity and energy.
#3.
That's super-dimensional. NOT super-natural. Super-dimensional existence is most likely also governed by natural laws. I see what you tried to do there :P
#4.
We know the infallible truth that non-intelligence CAN NOT create intelligence.
Where are you pulling that factoid from, besides your ass? It makes you sound an awful lot like you don't believe in evolution, in which case I should probably use shorter words, phonetically misspelled for your benefit. But I digress. I think the fact that you're writing arguments on this site directly disproves the italicized thesis. In any case, do explain to me your reasoning behind this ridiculous assertion.
#5.
The big bang is an explosion but as we have scientifically observed, tested, and retested, we know that explosions, bangs, and chaos DO NOT produce design, order, and complexity.
While the universe is expanding, entropy is inevitable. You're right in a way, but consider your viewpoint. What you perceive as design, order, and complexity are all in reality fleeting organizations, little whirlpools in the larger chaotic ocean.
Oh I forgot to mention why your oscillating theory doesn't work.
#1. Its unsupported by science and any objective evidence. No evidence, just wishful thinking.
#2. The scientific community almost dismissed that idea so now there looking for another theory ( ie: quantum cosmology theory and string theory) to evade that creation theory.
#3. in order for the universe to contract it would have to be dense enough to generate sufficient gravity that would eventually slow its expansion to a halt and then with increasing rapidity contract it. But estimates have shown that the universe is far below the density needed even when you include luminous matter and dark matter. Its dependent on critical mass which is not met so the universe will probably expand forever. The universe is also accelerating
#4. The reason that the universe would not "bounce" if it were to contract is that the universe is extremely inefficient (entropic). In fact, the universe is so inefficient that the bounce resulting from the collapse of the universe would be only 0.00000001% of the original Big Bang (see table above). Such a small "bounce" would result in an almost immediate re-collapse of the universe into one giant black hole for the rest of eternity.
Guth, A.H. and M. Sher. 1983. The impossibility of a bouncing universe. Nature 302: 505-506.
#5. there are no known physics that could reverse a contracting universe and make it bounce before it hits singularity.
#6. You forgot one important thing. It wasn't just mass and space that were created but linear time was also created during the Big Bang so no other universe could have existed prior to ours. The only way that would be possible is if this supposed fictitious universe was operating from another dimension of time.
The Nature of Space and Time, Hawking stated, "Today virtually everyone agrees that the universe and time itself had a beginning at the Big Bang."5
Hawking, S.W. and Penrose, R. 1996. The Nature of Space and Time, p. 20.
Nice attempt though but like I said, that was dumb as fuck
#1. Its unsupported by science and any objective evidence.
#2. The scientific community almost dismissed that idea so now there looking for another theory ( ie: quantum cosmology theory and string theory) to evade that creation theory.
There have been several advances in the past 10 years with regard to physical cosmology. Specifically, in-roads have been made toward a theory of quantum gravity, and several of the resulting models predict an oscillating (or, rather, a cyclic) universe. Most notably amongst them are loop quantum gravity and brane theory.
The important thing to note here is that the "problems" with the original Oscillating Universe and Big Bang models is that they are classical models (ie, non-quantum), and so necessarily break down in the vicinity of a massive singularity.
#3. in order for the universe to contract it would have to be dense enough to generate sufficient gravity that would eventually slow its expansion to a halt and then with increasing rapidity contract it. But estimates have shown that the universe is far below the density needed even when you include luminous matter and dark matter. Its dependent on critical mass which is not met so the universe will probably expand forever. The universe is also accelerating
This is a potentially valid argument against a cyclic model, but it's too early to really tell from the data. It also doesn't take into account the possibility of higher-order rates of changes (ie, if the rate of acceleration is decreasing). More importantly, we still don't know what's driving the apparent acceleration (which could just as easily be a relativistic illusion), and so there's no way to really tell what it's going to do.
#4. The reason that the universe would not "bounce" if it were to contract is that the universe is extremely inefficient (entropic). In fact, the universe is so inefficient that the bounce resulting from the collapse of the universe would be only 0.00000001% of the original Big Bang (see table above). Such a small "bounce" would result in an almost immediate re-collapse of the universe into one giant black hole for the rest of eternity.
Several recent advances address this issue. The one that comes most readily to mind is brane-cosmology, though I've heard that loop quantum gravity makes some intriguing suggestions as well.
Note: I personally don't support the cyclic or oscillatory models; this is just to poke holes in your supposed arguments.
On this issue I concede to your position fully. Though, a few questions:
Its dependent on critical mass which is not met so the universe will probably expand forever.
I can't really grasp how "forever" is possible, as we both seem to be in agreement that nothing is infinite. They don't see any end to expansion possible?
The [expansion of the] universe is also accelerating
I looked for why, but I could only find why they know this. What force could be responsible for accelerating expansion?
The reason that the universe would not "bounce" if it were to contract is that the universe is extremely inefficient (entropic). In fact, the universe is so inefficient that the bounce resulting from the collapse of the universe would be only 0.00000001% of the original Big Bang (see table above). Such a small "bounce" would result in an almost immediate re-collapse of the universe into one giant black hole for the rest of eternity.
Heh, that makes immediate sense. I feel stupid for not thinking of that.
#6. You forgot one important thing. It wasn't just mass and space that were created but linear time was also created during the Big Bang so no other universe could have existed prior to ours. The only way that would be possible is if this supposed fictitious universe was operating from another dimension of time.
I didn't FORGET that. I just never knew it :P
Surprise, Google: I believe you tried to knock me for copying from Wikipedia, which I didn't. But make sure you cite where you got your information: every bit of it is from www.godandscience.org. It seems like you copied their bibliography, and whole paragraphs of their text, in order to make it seem like you read the books and were writing from your own understanding. I'm in school, Herc, I know how to plagiarize. Since that site obviously has an agenda, I wouldn't trust it completely to give objective reports of science research. They will tend to make a presumption, and twist evidence to prove their point, rather than follow the scientific method.
Time in our universe was created, but M-theory shows good signs that time itself exists in the multiverse so a previous universe(s) could have existed.
Super dimensions huh? what fuckin evidence are you getting this from retard?..give me one evidence for multi dimensions...just one! You must know some unknown, Nobel peace prize winning shit that scientist aren't aware about. The only thing that is in another dimension is your head.
what physics indicates the oscillating theory? There are no known science that proves that. I am bringing up facts based on what up-to-date science reveals to us so far, what science leads us to discover, and you bring up some dumb shit from your head with zero evidence. It's make-believe irrational bullshit and you actually believe that its absolutely true with ZERO, NADA, evidence supporting it!! I find it tolerable and more reasonable to say "we don't know" then to actually make shit up. Get that cut and paste wacko-pedia shit out of here. Dude, you're funny...instead of the Big Bang theory you believe its the Big Bang Bang Bang Bang theory...kinda like your mom, dumbass.
How can you say that the universe is infinite? Infinite is conceptual and abstract. Can you fit "infinite" books in a finite bookshelf, retard?? You got to be on some drugs to believe that. How can you use "infinite" to depict a natural world?
Its now good science vs. your retarded make believe bullshit
And who said we were talking about evolution?
Science insinuates that only intelligence produces intelligence 100% of the time ALL the time. That is 100% consistent, 100% observable, 100% testable and I'm sad to say that also includes you.
So where is the evidence that says that non-intelligence produces intelligence? You got to be looking through some distorted lens.
I see what you're trying to do here :P
You're using non-scientific reasoning to postulate your own theories and label it a fact. (I call the bullshit flag on that one)
You're so transparent. I find it amusing how you're selective: you use science as the groundwork to support your claim and then you fill the rest with pathetic unorthodox science mixed with delusional BS outside the parameters of science...
Now that was dumb as fuck..It seems as evolution completely forgot about you...go back in your mom's basement and play some video games...
[W]hat [fucking] evidence are you getting this from[,] retard?
I have only a pedestrian knowledge of the Theory, admittedly, but at least I have the willingness to try to understand it. If you had done the tiniest bit of research, you could have called out my blatantly wrong assertion that the expansion of the universe is decelerating. Instead, you simply asserted that the burden of proof rests on the most widely accepted scientific model of the universe, after opining a talking snake is more believable. Actually, you're reminding me of the supernovas they discuss in the following link: the more I look at you, the dimmer you get.
give me one evidence for multi dimensions...just one! You must know some unknown, Nobel peace prize winning shit that scientist aren't aware about. The only thing that is in another dimension is your head.
"We CAN NOT use a natural explanation to explain [the universe's] origin if nature wasn't even created yet so we must go outside the domain of the natural that is not bounded by time, matter, and space. That now requires a super-natural explanation." Hmm, something outside of time, matter and space? Don't feel bad, you have plenty of company in people who are so comfortable in the intellectual apathy inherent in the "supernatural" assertion. As science progresses, we find that more and more is governed by natural laws we simply don't yet understand. Your doublethink is astounding, though. You insist the supernatural is the only explanation, and cite lack of evidence for your disbelief in extradimensional natural laws? Then again, your conception of "another dimension" is probably based solely on your observations from Monsters, Inc.
Hah, I just realized you said "Nobel Peace Prize." You are a laugh and a half :D
what physics indicates the oscillating theory...? you bring up some dumb shit from your head with zero evidence.
You're right. I think I read about the theory itself in some article that didn't mention it wasn't actually supported by the scientific community. It made intuitive sense to me, so I pretty much believed it. Rather than having me go back and edit where I said you don't do any research, simply belay it.
you believe its the Big Bang Bang Bang Bang theory...kinda like your mom, dumbass.
Really? My mom is single, so the door's open ;)
How can you say that the universe is infinite? Infinite is conceptual and abstract. Can you fit "infinite" books in a finite bookshelf, retard?? You got to be on some drugs to believe that. How can you use "infinite" to depict a natural world?
I'm not sure where you're getting "infinite" from anything I said. paste what I said, and say why you interpreted it that way. I certainly don't believe in any sort of infinity, at least in the conventional sense.
Science insinuates that only intelligence produces intelligence 100% of the time ALL the time. That is 100% consistent, 100% observable, 100% testable and I'm sad to say that also includes you.
I believe the burden of proof is on you, since you made that assertion. Applying a formula to the requirements of creation is non-parsimonious; thus the burden of proof is on you. I asked you for an example of the statement, and "Science say so" is completely inadequate. Ignoring the nebulous qualifications for "intelligence: since adjectives are relative words, does it not follow from "only intelligence begets intelligence" that something cannot create something more intelligent than itself? I'd like you to flesh out this idea, and why you're so confident in it. I've certainly never heard of it.
So where is the evidence that says that non-intelligence produces intelligence? You got to be looking through some distorted lens.
Evolution. Computers, in certain dimensions-- I should say "measures," instead. The D word seems to get you going :P
You're so transparent. I find it amusing how you're selective: you use science as the groundwork to support your claim and then you fill the rest with pathetic unorthodox science mixed with delusional BS outside the parameters of science...
Says the guy who believes in the talking snake? And who's being selective? You didn't respond to the following:
-"The Big Bang Theory does not posit that the universe came of nothingness."
-The part above about "science says so"
-"While the universe is expanding, entropy is inevitable. You're right in a way, but consider your viewpoint. What you perceive as design, order, and complexity are all in reality fleeting organizations, little whirlpools in the larger chaotic ocean."
And I'll go back to #6.
#6.
Last but not least, atheist will substitute what they do not know with "chance" as the cause. That is illogical. In "this" natural dimension there is always a cause for everything. Chance is not a cause.
Chance is not mutually exclusive with cause. The conditions for the genesis of life (cause) are rare, but could have happened given enough time and occurrences (chance). What's illogical about that?
We might have a 50/50 chance for heads or tails in a coin but nonetheless it still had a cause. Objectively that "cause" was due to several variables: me willingly moving my hands with a certain amount of force and from friction. So chance is never is a cause.
I see what you're saying, that all things have a cause. Ultimately, given enough data (omniscience), everything could be predicted, if all natural laws are constant. The natural laws that seem to be inconstant are most likely influenced by presently unknown laws, which are consistent. The word "chance" doesn't take a stance on the issue of determinism, however. "Odds" is much more fitting, as it more strongly indicates the backing of statistics to indicate the numerical CHANCE of an occurrence.
if you believe in the supernatural (something that is by definition unknowable to science) and are angry at him for believing in something on sound science, then you are guilty of your own fallacy.
it claims there is no god, to make that claims requires perfect knowledge of all things.( I know the objection; were not saying there is no god, we are just saying that we don't have a belief about god, which is a theology by way of negation and that turns out to be a belief about god,)
It assumes naturalism and by definition denies abstract realities.
It assumes that in the beginning there was only matter and energy. We don't know that nor can we prove it.
It implies that something can come from nothing.
it assumes non-life can give rise to life, something that has never been demonstrated.
It fails to provide a sufficient cause for the effect we see, It is like saying that something caused the universe and nothing was that something.
It's explanatory power and scope is inadequate to account for all of reality.
It claims we come from nothing and return to nothing and than attempts to say that some how in the middle of those two points we are something.
and finally it denies the reality of all that we value has human beings. Just think of all that is important to you: chances are that none of it is material things. Atheism claims that the physical universe is all there is; but we instinctively know that it is not all there is because we experience so much more.
My atheism doesn't say any of that so..... I don't know where you got hose definitions from. Whoever believes that would be a gnostic atheist which is just as bad as a gnostic theist. You have to agnostic either way to be intellectually honest, because you can't know anything without knowing everything. You can only make assumptions based on the evidence.
Atheism doesn't state that they only reality is the natural reality, it states that any other realities that may exist are natural.
The idea of something that comes from nothing does indeed create some cognitive dissonance, I'll give you that. When taken to its extreme, it would seem to indicate either there is something that has always existed, or that at some point there was nothing, which is where the dissonance comes from since we are obviously here to make these logical statements.
However, the illogical side of the theistic argument is when they claim to hold to the notion that nothing can come from nothing and then immediately make a conclusion that denies that; there was something that came from nothing, and that something is God, specifically whatever interpretation of God you happen to believe in.
The best thing that this approach does is highlight that perhaps the premise that everything came from something might not be entirely accurate. But this logical exercise alone does not support any of the further conclusions drawn about the eternal object. Why does there have to be only one? Why does it have to have intelligence? Why does it have to have intentionally initiated the universe? Why does it have to continue the guidance thereof since natural occurrences are keeping everything going on their own? Why would such a limitless entity be so interested in a species that is so infinitesimally limited on the axes of space and time?
Every answer I've ever heard to these questions relies on speculation rather than evidence and, more importantly, is unwilling to change should new evidence be provided to the contrary.
Another approach, a more agnostic one, is to admit that we don't know everything yet. When we work with subatomic particles, the typical laws of physics appear to change, and we aren't sure why. We also can't directly observe anything smaller than a photon, nor can we see beyond distances that are farther than the speed of light. No human has been out beyond our moon's orbit. And then there is the realization that the original statement requires time to be universally linear in the manner that we observe on Earth, or at least that nonlinear time would be subordinate to ours. The first part of that assessment has been demonstrably proven wrong, while the second has no reason to be taken as truth without some supporting evidence.
Most atheists who are scientifically inclined do not assume that something came from nothing. Rather we are interested in trying to keep progressing knowledge further by continued observation and experimentation, and are not satisfied with unprovable answers that, while possibly accurate, were derived by ignorant and superstitious people centuries before modern science was born.
Basically we say we don't know what the answer is, because that is the only honest recourse when you don't have all the data. And there is nothing wrong with admitting that you don't know something, especially if you are actively engaged in the search for truth.
" there was something that came from nothing, and that something is God"
The Big Bang in a nutshell simply states that all time, space, matter, energy etc etc came into existence at a point in the past. Therefore the cause of the big bang must be outside of all those things and it can't be any of those things. It must be by necessity eternal otherwise we would have nothing today. That's what I mean when I say something can't come from nothing. Something transcendent to the universe had to cause the universe to come into existence otherwise it never would have. And that something has to be very powerful and eternal to be a sufficient cause of the universe. And something that comes into existence at a point in time would be contingent upon something else prior for it's existence and therefore it could not be a sufficient cause of the universe.
So no, God never came into existence, He always was. That's partly what it means to be God, your existence is not dependent on something else prior, but everything else is dependent upon your existence. Being God means you are the sine qua non of the universe.
And by logical necessity there can only be one God. Because if there was another he would be derived and therefore a contingent being. Also about this cause being intelligent it is simply the most reasonable explanation from the evidence. I see a universe of incredible design and logically conclude there must be a designer. And such design doesn't happen by chance, it takes a mind. And minds are the sort of thing that have intelligence, intentionality and are capable of caring, all properties I see in the world around me. And in regards that care being some how restricted by size and location; I see an attention to detail that is staggering from the micro to the macro.
And furthermore since the universe came into existence we can conclude that it was done intentionally. Because there was a time it wasn't and then there is a time it was. Why the change? It's similar to you sitting in your chair and deciding to stand up, that takes volition, intention and will. All those things are the properties of a mind and not matter. And keep in mind that this act caused all matter to come into existence so it is prior to all things like time, space, matter etc etc. If it was a law like gravity, which is part of the effect and not the cause, then it would be a simple repeating pattern. But the creation of the universe doesn't bear those properties, it is a rare, non-repeatable one time event. And therefore the product of volition and not law.
I'm just a human trying to make sense of the world around me. Do I have all the answers and everything fit into a nice neat box, absolutely not. But being a Christian answers a whole lot more questions and makes more sense of the world around me than does being agnostic or atheistic. In my opinion agnosticism is just a cloak for intellectual cowardice and atheism can't get past square one. Atheism in my opinion is like a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat with no magician, hat or rabbit, it's simply inconceivable and illogical.
I will not throw my arms up and say I don't know because I don't have all the answers, nobody does. But that doesn't mean we can't come to reasonable conclusions about things. And no other worldview makes more sense and can account for more things than the Christian Worldview. In a nutshell, If the Christian Worldview is true than we should expect to find a lot of it's features in the world around us and we do like evil. And if Atheism is true there are a lot of things in the world that shouldn't be there like logic. Because logic is immaterial and Atheism by definition is materialistic.
Truth is that which corresponds to reality and that's what i'm looking for, things that make sense of the world around me. Not some never never land of wild speculations of infinite possibilities. I want the most reasonable conclusion from the facts and the Christian Worldview, properly understood and articulated, does that like no other worldview does, bar none.
