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.
34 days ago | Tagged As: Atheism is the only logical position
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.
486 days ago | Tagged As: Agnostic
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).
While I agree that agnosticism is logically sound, it doesn't directly answer the question of whether god(s) exist. Isn't that kind of the point of agnosticism? ;-)
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? Agnostic: La la la la la la la
34 days ago | Tagged As: Atheism is the only logical position
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.
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).
505 days ago | Tagged As: Atheism is the only logical position
"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)." Considering that I'm not, point them out.
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.
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?
483 days ago | Tagged As: Atheism is the only logical position
"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.
logic != formal logic 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.
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. Atheism is logical, rational and reasonable.
483 days ago | Tagged As: Atheism is the only logical position
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.
124 days ago | Tagged As: Atheism is the only logical position
How does not believing in a god appeal to ignorance, any more then believing in a god appeals to ignorance? Also, logical and rational are synonyms.
Logic and reason are not the same. They are similar but different. Though I do agree that the statement and reasoning presented here are flawed.
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.
503 days ago | Tagged As: Atheism is the only logical position
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.
"Your arguments should speak for themselves. " 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.
You and your fancy pants terminimology :) I think it's safe to say the original poster meant, "Atheism doesn't make sense to me."
people are born atheists and have do be convinced of religion. this makes religion a positive claim, thus the burden is on the believers.
Atheism is relatively illogical. "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.
505 days ago | Tagged As: Empirical atheism is not illogical
Wait! We need to define and prove logic first.
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. Hope this helps.
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.
This debate is illogical. And very, very stupid.
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.
Supporting Evidence:
Pascal's Wager
(en.wikipedia.org)
504 days ago | Tagged As: Empirical atheism is not illogical
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).
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. Makes perfect sense to me.
Atheism is based on logic and all other religions are based on faith and believing.
258 days ago | Tagged As: atheism equals logic
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. Because it's true.
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. Other than that..that's about it
#1. 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. #6. Sorry, but that was stupid as fuck.
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. I know, your ignorance is a cozy little place, but learning something can't hurt. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence 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.
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. I see what you tried to do there :P
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.
130 days ago | Tagged As: illogical
not at all. people are born without belief in the supernatural (as atheists). this places the burden on the believer to convince them otherwise.
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.
111 days ago | Tagged As: Agnostic
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.
Main Entry: athe·ism Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god Date: 1546 1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness 2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity Atheism as defined by Merriam-Webster 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?
How can an atheist believe in a deity? They can't, by definition. 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 don't make any kind of sense whatsoever. 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?? Spoonerism, you're an idiot.
39 days ago | Tagged As: Empirical atheism is not illogical
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.
21 days ago | Tagged As: illogical
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.
11 days ago | Tagged As: This debate is illogical
Atheism is illogical for several reasons; 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.
This debate as a whole is illogical. The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes,
21 days ago | Tagged As: This debate is illogical
|
