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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is atheism the most logical theistic stance?
Many theists claim that it's logical to believe in a god (or gods), while most atheists would suggest that atheism is consistent with the evidence (or lack of evidence), making it the more rational and logical position.
In any case where a claim is tested for veracity, the only verifiable test is that of evidence. When we find no objective evidence to support a claim, we find in favor of the null conclusion. For example; we have many suggested entities for which we have no evidence, including fairies, Leprechauns, gremlins, unicorns, and mermaids. And in each example, the common response is to note the lack of evidenced to support the existence of each suggested entity, and therefore conclude that they do not exist. However, religion has remained very popular while the concept of a god (or gods), appears to be just as devoid of objective evidence as for any of the other suggested examples, which most of us would give little more than a second thought before concluding non-existence.
So concluding that God does exist is a case of special-pleading. Being a more popular belief, does not mean that it's more logical, or more likely.
The evidence is clear when you understand what "God" means.
God is defined by merriam-webster as "The supreme and/or ultimate reality"
Supreme is defined by merriam-webster as "highest in rank or authority" or "highest in degree or quality"
Ultimate is defined by merriam-webster as "the best or most extreme of its kind" or "basic, fundamental" or "incapable of further analysis, division, or separation"
Reality is defined by merriam-webster as "The quality or state of being real"
~~~~
God is real by definition. Therefore, it is nonsensical to deny God. In fact, God isn't just defined as being real, but God is defined as being real in the truest sense of the word. So real in fact, that if you say "there is no God" you automatically invalidate any other claims of truth that you may make.
To hammer things home, lets go to the Oxford
Oxford defines God as the "supreme being"
Supreme is defined as "Highest in rank or authority".
Being is defined as "Existence".
It means the same thing in Oxford.
~~~
The existence of God is a given. It isn't something that should even be up for debate.
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality Greek gods of love and war
You can't just define god as reality itself and therefore make god real - a claim of god comes with a certain set of attributes - attributes that the atheist remains unconvinced of without evidence.
A lightface colon following a definition and immediately preceding two or more subsenses indicates that the subsenses are subsumed by the preceding definition:
2crunch noun . . . 3 : a tight or critical situation: as a : a critical point in the buildup of pressure between opposing elements . . . b : a severe economic squeeze . . . c : SHORTAGE
se·quoia . . . noun . . . : either of two huge coniferous California trees of the bald cypress family that may reach a height of over 300 feet (90 meters): a : GIANT SEQUOIA b : REDWOOD 3a
The word as may or may not follow the lightface colon. Its presence (as at 2 crunch) indicates that the following subsenses are typical or significant examples. Its absence (as at sequoia) indicates that the subsenses which follow are exhaustive.
~~~~~
What does that all mean? It means that the word God with a capital "G" means "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality"
Oxford says "The Supreme Being". It means the same thing.
See, you have so little respect for what it is we are talking about that you can't even capitalize the word.
I am talking about The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, and that is the theologically correct understanding of what the concept of "God" means.
Your confusion comes from using the dictionary improperly. The second definition you use is not relevant to what I am talking about. The gods come and go, but God is eternal.
If you refuse to accept the definition of God that theists agree on, why are you pretending to care about evidence?
The many varying opinions about God do not have any bearing on what God IS.
1 (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2 (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
‘a moon god’
‘the Hindu god Vishnu’
2.1 An image, animal, or other object worshipped as divine or symbolizing a god.
‘wooden gods from the Congo’
2.2 Used as a conventional personification of fate.
‘he dialed the number and, the gods relenting, got through at once’
---------
Neither definitions 1 nor 2 can just be presumed to exist because reality exists.
you can't even capitalize the word
If we are not talking about a specific god, the correct usage is not capitalized.
The many varying opinions about God do not have any bearing on what God IS.
But changing the definition can certainly change the arguments.
God = reality therefore God is real = useless tautology and ignores the general use of the term.
God controls human fate, created the universe, is the source of morality, etc. comports more with the general use of the term, but are all things for which there is no evidence.
The God I speak of is The Only True God, The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
Clearly God controls human fate, God is omnipotent. That means "All influence". What that means is that GOD DID IT.
Clearly God created the universe, because the universe could not create The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. There is no existence apart from The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
Clearly God is the source of moral authority, because The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is what grants all authority to begin with.
The evidence is in accepting that when I say "God", I am talking about "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality", what that means, and nothing else. If you do not acknowledge God as being real you are denying the truth. Literally denying the truth.
If you deny the truth, you lost from the get go. You don't even believe in what you say. Your argument isn't valid. You are being arbitrary.
So it would be better for you to turn from your wicked ways and acknowledge The Supreme and Ultimate Reality as God.
Clearly God controls human fate, God is omnipotent. That means "All influence". What that means is that GOD DID IT.
Clearly God created the universe, because the universe could not create The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. There is no existence apart from The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
Clearly God is the source of moral authority, because The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is what grants all authority to begin with.
Exactly - there is no evidence for any of this.
It is not invalid to say that your argument with no evidence is unconvincing.
There is no accessible moral standard with or without God.
If there is a god, there would only (potentially) be an ontological objective morality that humans might be judged by, but epistemologically don't have access to.
Logic's has shown its validity in making better predictions than the alternatives and is useful regardless of whether an omnibenevolent dictator who can't prevent suffering exists to give moral laws or not.
You attach all these properties to God out of superstition
I didn't assign any attributes to God, I asked you what attributes you assigned.
"The Supreme and Ultimate Reality". Clearly you either don't understand what that means or you are lying.
I asked you what it meant to you, and you said it meant the real reality.
Then you said reality includes all of the below...:
Clearly God controls human fate, God is omnipotent. That means "All influence". What that means is that GOD DID IT.
Clearly God created the universe, because the universe could not create The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. There is no existence apart from The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
Clearly God is the source of moral authority, because The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is what grants all authority to begin with.
and, still, you have given no reason(s) why this must be the case except your say so.
You are pondering about created things, you still don't even recognize what I'm telling you.
How can I speak more plainly? The God I speak of is The Truth.
Yet something so simple is impossible for the God denier to grasp, for if they truly did have knowledge they could never believe that God doesn't exist. As the scriptures so rightly say, it is because they have no love for the truth that they have been cursed with delusion.
If people believe in reality and truth, then they believe in reality and truth - they don't suddenly believe in God because you temporarily change the definition to try to get someone to agree, so you can then re-assign any attributes you want to God.
Changing the word god to mean reality and/or truth, (or love or any of the other attempts in this vein) is to obliterate the meaning so that God is useless and has no properties (which is by design to avoid providing evidence of any asserted attributes.)
If God has no property except unverifiable existence, what use is it? Why would anyone change their lives in support of a belief that reality exists? Should people pray to reality?
You really are denying reality by denying God. I can't make this simpler. You accuse me of trying to weasel something else in because you are superstitious and think that what I have to say has any bearing on The Absolute Truth of God.
It is relationship with God that has an effect on one's life. Being God conscious is always better in any situation than not being God conscious.
Ah - the wisdom of the ages. If only anyone throughout history ever thought to just change the term to just be meaningless, they could have proved "God" existed long ago...
I can't make it more clearer. You are being arbitrary. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is what God means, and denying God is denying the Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
You deny my God, you are the greatest of fools. It would be better for you didn't embrace wickedness. You condemn yourself, though you know it not.
Yeah, except I am actually using an academically respected dictionary. A dictionary that predicts atheists are by nature ones who have embraced arbitrariness.
Something you aren't really make a good case against right now.
Using your definitions just shows that dragons (supreme beings) are God.
You use whatever words you want at whatever time you want.
Oxford says: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
You vacillate between saying this is so and not so. It is so as long as you don't have to provide any evidence, then it is not so and God is just reality again.
merriam-webster gives these examples:
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
again, you think that's great until you have to back it up with anything but your say so.
Then, God is back to just the useless version of reality.
You clearly don't know what you are talking about, there can only be One Supreme Being by definition. There cannot be "supreme beings".
Your gods are worthless idols and fetishes you show favor to over The Truth. Abandon your wicked ways, repent, and believe the gospel, that God is Salvation!
You've made your own God worthless. If God is nothing but reality, then it says nothing of whether God is moral, worthy of worship, cares about anything - especially humans - especially enough to intervene in the natural processes of the universe, or whether God can intervene even if he wants to.
My dragons are like the Trinity - they are multiple and one at the same time - see, more proof that dragons are God."
Everything about this statement is wrong. Besides that, It is true what I say, by definition there can only be One Supreme Being.
You aren't even trying. Maybe I should just take the advice of your name.
"You've made your own God worthless. If God is nothing but reality, then it says nothing of whether God is moral, worthy of worship, cares about anything - especially humans - especially enough to intervene in the natural processes of the universe, or whether God can intervene even if he wants to."
In other words, reality is not a factor in your decision making process.
The question remains, though, whether it is logical to disbelieve in unicorns and gremlins either (rather than to abstain from a belief in either direction). It may be reasonable to disbelieve, but whether it is logical is another matter.
Atheism is basically a position on one question and that is whether there is a god or not .
Theists seem to think if an Atheist cannot explain how it all started then his position is disingenuous ; this is not the case at all as it's the most genuine and honest approach to take .
Billions of believers say there is a god yet not one of them can provide one shred of solid evidence to support such a claim , the only way they know of god is through the bible which is an error filled and contradictory book from start to finish .
It's totally irrational to believe the claim god exists yet fulfills none of the criteria of existent things as in a god has never been seen , heard or touched yet believers say they have a ' relationship ' with him .
If say the Christian god exists why can he not show himself ?
If all his followers totally believe in him how would showing himself ruin that relationship ?
The evidence is clear when you understand what "God" means.
God is defined by merriam-webster as "The supreme and/or ultimate reality"
Supreme is defined by merriam-webster as "highest in rank or authority" or "highest in degree or quality"
Ultimate is defined by merriam-webster as "the best or most extreme of its kind" or "basic, fundamental" or "incapable of further analysis, division, or separation"
Reality is defined by merriam-webster as "The quality or state of being real"
~~~~
God is real by definition. Therefore, it is nonsensical to deny God. In fact, God isn't just defined as being real, but God is defined as being real in the truest sense of the word. So real in fact, that if you say "there is no God" you automatically invalidate any other claims of truth that you may make.
To hammer things home, lets go to the Oxford
Oxford defines God as the "supreme being"
Supreme is defined as "Highest in rank or authority".
Being is defined as "Existence".
It means the same thing in Oxford.
~~~
The existence of God is a given. It isn't something that should even be up for debate.
Evidence ? There is none , and I don't believe in a god so attempting to ' understand ' a god is ridiculous.
Regards a dictionary stating what constitutes a god so what ?
Yours is just one of thousands of different attempts by believers at defining what they think god is all meaningless nonsense not wothy of serious contemplation
“Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.”
You are scared of a word. You are so scared of the word "God" that you can't even accept what it means. You can't accept what it means because it makes you wrong.
No, God isn't "just" reality. God is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
No, it is not a useless concept. Your inability to see the utility in taking your relationship with God seriously does not change the fact that you'd be better off keeping it real.
It is the difference between reality as it is observed, as it is perceived, as it is thought to be, as it appears to be, as it seems to be, as it is known to be, as it is believed to be and....
Step 1: God = reality - do you believe in reality?
um, for the sake of argument, sure
Step 2: well, my definition of 'reality' includes an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good god that created everything, which has intent for the fate of all man-kind,
and you said you believe in reality, so you must think the same.
Changing the definition to fit your position = equivocation fallacy:
You don't have to believe the same things about The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. In fact, whatever we think The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is surely cannot be The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
That is what the word means, and you are attaching unnecessary baggage to the concept. Do I believe that baggage is all implied? Absolutely. You do not have that realization. What you can realize is that God means "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality", and if you deny this, you are denying reality, and if you are denying reality you have build your house on sand.
I'm not changing the definition of anything, you aren't seeing what is essential.
Yes, no one these days has seen, heard, or touched God, But atheism has just as much evidence as Creationism (Maybe even less). So, I want you to give me one piece of evidence that shows atheism is true.
atheism has just as much evidence as Creationism (Maybe even less).
There is lots of evidence against creation as described in Genesis - e.g. an earth with water, an atmosphere, grass, fruit trees, night and day, before the sun was created is not a reliable explanation of creation.
give me one piece of evidence that shows atheism is true
Reasons for not believing in God:
The absence of evidence for believing.
Incongruities/contradictions between those that do believe.
Reduced ability to make reliable predictions compared to knowledge gained from the scientific method.
Problem of evil (argument against all-good, all-powerful god that loves humans)
Simple to complex evolution better explains our origins, social moors, etc.
The predisposition towards superstition when given random stimuli.
The vanishing "God of the Gaps" as our knowledge/information increases.
Let's define terms, because atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive.
(Note that when I use the word agnostic I am referring to somebody who says they don't know if God exists, rather than one who says it's not possible to know if God exists)
There are four common possibilities:
1. Gnostic theist: Believes there is a god(s), and is certain of this.
2. Agnostic theist: Believes there is a god(s), but is uncertain of this.
3. Gnostic atheist: Lacks belief in a god(s), and is certain there isn't one.
4. Agnostic atheist: Lacks belief in a god(s), but doesn't know for sure.
I get what you are saying, but this is only applicable to number 3, not 4, which most atheists are.
The atheist stance to me is perfectly supportable ,most Atheists do not claim with absolute certainty or absolute knowledge that they know there is not a god which is a common misconception. However, they do say that they do not have a belief in a god at least in relative terms because everything we understand about the universe and how it functions and operates does not imply a god exists. Supernatural phenomena such as the belief in a god have not met the burden of proof because they have not been demonstrably demonstrated and verified with empirical evidence. You do not go about life assuming things exist and then require these things to be disproven before you dismiss them. If you were to go about life this way you would end up believing everything you were told. Instead you should assume that things do not exist until these things have first been demonstrably demonstrated or discovered to be true.
Just because something is possible does not mean it's probable
This is where the term agnostic (don't know but generally doubt due to lack of evidence) is useful as a way to differentiate from atheist (specifically believe there is no god).
If the only "evidence" you have is that you believe there is no God, then why do you argue with my stance? I believe that there is a god, so...don't argue with my stance when you yourself have just as evidence as I do.
IF you do not believe in God, you are an atheist. Agnostics are functionally atheists. They are arbitrary.
Do you believe there is such a thing as truth? If so, you believe in God.
"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen."
The burden of proof for the existence of a God falls wholly on theists. An Atheist's position is simply that any claim that has no basis or evidence can be dismissed until it is backed.
There is no reason for anyone to believe in something unless it can be demonstrated or backed by concrete evidence, and as far as anyone could tell, there isn't anything that explicitly points to the existence of a divine entity besides wishful thinking or suspicious anecdotes.
That depends upon whether dismissal is enacted as an absence of belief or an active disbelief. In the case of the latter, a respective positive claim has been made in response to the original positive claim that god(s) exist(s). While there is little motivation for an atheist of the latter variety to fulfill their burden of proof when the theist does not do so, that does not mean there is no burden of proof.
Atheism is basically a position on one question and that is whether there is a god or not .
Theists seem to think if an Atheist cannot explain how it all started then his position is disingenuous ; this is not the case at all as it's the most genuine and honest approach to take .
Billions of believers say there is a god yet not one of them can provide one shred of solid evidence to support such a claim , the only way they know of god is through the bible which is an error filled and contradictory book from start to finish .
It's totally irrational to believe the claim god exists yet fulfills none of the criteria of existent things as in a god has never been seen , heard or touched yet believers say they have a ' relationship ' with him .
If say the Christian god exists why can he not show himself ?
If all his followers totally believe in him how would showing himself ruin that relationship ?
Definition of superstition courtesy of merriam-webster
1 a :a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
b :an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 :a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary
~~~
Definition of god
1 capitalized :the supreme or ultimate reality: such as
a :the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
~~~~
The Ultimate Reality is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe, the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness. It's about The Truth.
Do you recognize The Ultimate Reality as being God? Do you recognize The Supreme Reality as being God? Do you recognize The Necessary Existence? Do you recognize The Singularity?
Do you believe in this God? How could you not? Isn't it obvious that God has given you everything? Do you deny this God?
But I keep telling you I don't believe in god so you may define the term anyway you wish it's still nonsense ; regarding superstitious well that's you going on your much loved definitions .......
an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
The fact that you can not say, "I believe there is no ultimate reality" proves to me that you do in fact believe in God, whether or not you are willing to admit it.
You say the idea of a God is ridiculous. creationism has more evidence supporting it than atheism, yet you choose believe in something with even less evidence than creationism, why? I would love fore you to give me one piece of evidence that supports atheism.
Creationism had zero evidence , I don't choose to believe in anything I reject the claim there is a god . The burden of proof is with you as you're making the affirmative claim ..... so prove your god exists
You just tried to turn the question on me. You can't give evidence because you have none. Why are you trying to get me to give evidence when you can't provide any yourself. Also, every design has a designer, right? The universe has a highly complex design. Therefore, the universe has a designer. That's my "evidence".
You just tried to turn the question on me. You can't give evidence because you have none. Why are you trying to get me to give evidence when you can't provide any yourself. Also, every design has a designer, right? The universe has a highly complex design. Therefore, the universe has a designer. That's my "evidence". P.S.
You said creationism "had" zero evidence, does that imply that you
I can give evidence that there's no god , but if you don't behave and merely assert I have none you're being a prick
Your argument is nonsense , let me educate you ......next argument please
(This argument is called the Watch Maker Argument and says that there appears to be design in a watch therefore there must have been a designer. A different example people use is a painting and a painter and they say that this same designing concept also applies to the universe and evolution.)
The Counter Argument:
The reason the watch and the painting arguments fail is because you know these things have been designed by people and there are many examples of these things being manufactured and built in workshops and in art studios. There are no examples on the other hand that humans have been designed in workshops or zapped into existence with a magic wand. Complexity does not mean design within the natural world. Simplicity can form complexity within the natural world. Many things that appear to be designed are not. Snowflakes and crystals are made by natural means and not by a Magical-Man in the sky. Snowflakes and crystals only occur under the right natural conditions. As in the case for snowflakes and crystals life also needs certain conditions in order to form. There are no known natural processes that allow watches and paintings to form whereas snowflakes, diamonds and the foundations of life have natural processes that allow for them to form under the right conditions. This argument contains the False Analogy fallacy because you cannot compare naturally occurring things to things that are not known to occur naturally under the right conditions. Watches and paintings do not have a way to replicate and do not occur naturally but living things and life can reproduce offspring and can occur naturally under the right conditions.
Note: Humans were designed but it was not a top down design coming from a god but a bottom up design coming from gradual modifications over long periods of time. Gene flow and mutation explain how things change within evolution.
You still haven't given an answer to my question. You say you can, so, by all means, please do. My question was simple, "Give me one piece of evidence that proves Atheism. another thing do you (as an atheist) believe in macro-evolution?
Give me one piece of evidence that proves Atheism.
You cannot prove the absence of something which could be anywhere in or outside of the universe without having first explored everywhere in and outside of the universe. In science, law and common logic, the burden of proof is upon the person making the affirmative claim.
Yes I can but first you stated ......You say the idea of a God is ridiculous. creationism has more evidence supporting it than atheism, yet you choose believe in something with even less evidence than creationism, why? I would love fore you to give me one piece of evidence that supports atheism.
You made a statement you didn't back it up regarding creationism, back your assertion up .
Constance (Environmental and physical factors), The earth's size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter. Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.
The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day. Is that good enough for you?
Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen."
Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."
The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter.
The argument fails because it contains two logical fallacies. The first logical fallacy this argument contains is Special Pleading because the argument creates a rule that only a god is exempt from and is able to break. It doesn’t explain what the cause of a god is. This is something called an infinite regress problem whereby there is no end to trying to figure out what was before the first cause. If a god does not need a cause then why not save yourself a step and say that the universe does not need a cause to exist either. There is no need to create an extra step for yourself so you might as well say that the universe does not need a cause to exist. It could be that the universe has simply always existed in one form or another. Energy may have always existed in one form or another.
The second fallacy this argument contains is the Fallacy of Composition by assuming that because a portion of the universe has a reason for its existence means that the universe as a whole also needs a reason for its existence. It could be that the universe does not need a reason as a whole. It could be that the universe has simply always existed in one form or another. Energy may have always existed in one form or another.
Which is the only reason you are here to marvel at it. There are plenty of other planets which are not perfect, and that is why you are not standing on them.
The universe has a highly complex design. Therefore, the universe has a designer.
I told you several hours ago that this is not an argument. You have reached a conclusion based upon a hypothesis which you have not proven (i.e. that the universe has a "design").
What you are calling an argument is actually known as a false syllogism. It amounts to:-
A) The universe has a design (i.e. unproven premise)
B) Every design has a designer. Therefore:-
C) The universe has a designer.
Spectacular abuse of logic is not the same thing as an argument.
I'm not an atheist myself, however it's undeniable that atheism is the far more logical position.
Atheism looks at science, and scientific explanations; as we know, science is a direct path to the truth.
Theism, on the other hand, relies massively on faith and I dare say the "hope" that there is a God.
Science beats faith in the "logical" department. I neither believe or disbelieve however, so don't mistake this as an argument for the non-existence of God; it is not.
1 capitalized :the supreme or ultimate reality: such as
a :the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
The ultimate reality is indeed worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe, the being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness.
Existing happens to be a defining characteristic of the supreme reality. There is nothing logical or scientific about denying God. Of course a God denier wouldn't know what they are talking about, they have adopted the position of one who is in denial of ultimate reality.
That means they don't even believe in truth. They are telling you right off the bat that they are lying. They don't even know it.
Make no mistake, God has been proven to exist. Nothing has greater scientific confirmation.
The word "God" with a capital "G" means "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality".
Clearly God exists.
Maybe it doesn't make sense to you because you don't know what "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality" means. Contemplate on that a bit more, and it should make sense eventually.
If you do not believe that God is real, you are not accepting that when I say "God", I am talking about The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. You are taking it as if I am talking about something else.
If you understood what "Supreme and Ultimate Reality" means, what I just said will make perfect sense.
There is no doubt about the existence of God, because existence is the essential quality of God. If you are thinking of something that doesn't exist, you are not actually using the proper definition. You are attacking a straw man. You are attacking little "g" gods, not God with the big "G".
Whilst the ontological argument is one of my favourite perspectives for the existence of God, I don't believe it's an absolute, objective proof that God does exist.
You cannot attempt to simply define God into existence and leave it at that. It's not evidence, it's a theory.
If you don't believe that God exists, we aren't talking about the same thing. If you want to be arbitrary about what it is that is being discussed because you have an aversion to the word "God", I can't be blamed for that.
See, there is no proof without you accepting the definition of the word. If you don't accept the definition of the word, I might as well be arguing about a created thing.
I'm not talking about a created thing, I'm talking about The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
If you don't accept what it is I am talking about, you aren't going to see how God is clearly exceptional. There is no argument that stands against God, it is a futile endeavor.
The proof that God exists is all around you. The fact that you experience anything at all is proof that God exists. If you were to accept the evidence.
See, if you don't accept the evidence, it isn't proof to you.
"the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact"
So, if you are dead set on not accepting something as being true, it doesn't matter if all the evidence in the world is presented to you.. If you are not compelled to accept The Truth of God, you can always say, "I see no proof", and be technically correct about that.
Demanding proof is arbitrary if you don't actually care about what is true. Whether or not something has been proven to you has very little to do with whether or not something exists.
God clearly exists, because we are talking about the essence of existence. If you say that God doesn't exist, you are not actually talking about God, because the defining characteristic of God is existence. You might as well be talking about stones when I am trying to have a conversation with you about trees.
Really, you are talking about gods when I am trying to point you to God.
I'm not trying to define God into existence, I'm telling you very plainly what the concept means. The concept means something greater than what the concept means. That is intrinsic to what "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality" means.
See, you have already performed all the necessary scientific experimentation. You already have within you knowledge of evidence of God. Simply accepting what it is we are talking about should be enough for God to be proven to you.
How are you going to understand the evidence if you don't understand the theory?
What is the theory?
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
Yet, God is not simply a theory, but the evident truth. It goes beyond fact. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
Not a theory, reality. The essence of reality itself. There is no reality without God.
If you don't believe that God exists, we aren't talking about the same thing. If you want to be arbitrary about what it is that is being discussed because you have an aversion to the word "God", I can't be blamed for that.
I don't believe that God exists, but I also don't believe that God doesn't exist. I think both concepts are possible.
God clearly exists, because we are talking about the essence of existence. If you say that God doesn't exist, you are not actually talking about God, because the defining characteristic of God is existence. You might as well be talking about stones when I am trying to have a conversation with you about trees.
Who says that God's defining characteristic is existence? To me, God's defining characteristic would be omnipotence. To others, it might be omnibenevolence... to others, God's defining characteristic is non-existence.
You cannot use human-made words as a means of defining God into existence. I could say that the defining characteristic of God is that He's a transgender rabbit. That doesn't mean He is.
The issue with the ontological argument, as much as I love it, is that it relies on using human logic to deduce God's existence. Yes, in theory, if God is all-powerful then he could make himself exist. But that ignores the fact that the universe doesn't always abide by human ideas - much of it is beyond our understanding.
Your concept of God is that he exists because he must exist - because you say so, because human language proves it through definitions of "ultimate" and "supreme" and "existence".
Those are human-made words. There is no absolute logic which links the fabric of the universe and our reality to our language. An alien society in another galaxy might have the definition of God as something which doesn't exist in the real world. Their "anti-ontological" argument would be just as legitimate - and logical - as yours.
I am talking about The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
If you want to confuse things by talking about what other people say God is, it is irrelevant. There are a lot of people who are wrong. I'm telling you the truth. I'm also telling you that you are confused by superstition.
God being THE TRUTH is the defining characteristic of God.
I'm not defining things into existence, I'm making clear what I am talking about. That is what a definition is. You don't understand my argument. It might be because you don't understand what the intent of a definition is.
What I am saying is very consistent with what has been consistent since the beginning.
I only say one thing. God is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
If your aversion is to the word God, why don't you tell me what your problem with The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is?
My argument is that you can't even agree on what we are talking about, because if you were to agree with me on what it is we are talking about, it would make it very clear that God exists. There would no longer be a debate.
Truly, the existence of God is not up for debate. If everyone in the entire world were to deny God, it would have no effect on God's existence. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality simply is, and it is not a contingent existence.
We use words because that is the medium we are using, but what I am talking about is beyond words.
Yet, the scriptures do speak about why it is that anyone would dispute what it is one means when they use the word of God properly....
"..they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness."
The Word I speak of is not an arbitrary pronouncement of syllables. I'm talking about The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. The Word of God.
God being THE TRUTH is the defining characteristic of God.
Yes... to you.
To an atheist, the defining characteristic of God is the opposite of the truth.
To an agnostic, the defining characteristic of God is that we don't know.
Your argument has no substance. It's just "my opinion of what God is is right. Everyone else is wrong".
because if you were to agree with me on what it is we are talking about... There would no longer be a debate.
Yes, congratulations, that is the purpose of a debate.
Truly, the existence of God is not up for debate.
I think that's up for debate.
Yet, the scriptures do speak about why it is that anyone would dispute what it is one means when they use the word of God properly....
The scriptures? Which scripture do you believe in? Do you believe that to be the absolute word of God? How can you link your God, who you claim undeniably exists, to religious scripture?
Perhaps God does exist - or maybe many Gods - but I don't think you can use the argument for God's existence as an argument for religion's truth.
The difference is, if you say there are is no God, you are clearly not talking about my God.
Whether or not you have realized God, My God still exists. My God is not contingent on yours or anyone's belief. My God is not even contingent on my belief.
The God I speak of is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
To you, it is clearly an arbitrary matter.
Also, your questions are superstitious. You have superstitious ideas about God. If you believe me, your questions would be revealed as being superstitious.
All you have to do is accept that God with a capital "G" is defined as "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality", otherwise, you are not talking about the same thing as me.
My argument is not, "My opinion of what God is is right. Everyone else is wrong."
I am not expressing my opinion, I am expressing knowledge of theology. I am not saying anything that hasn't been said for thousands of years.
The difference is, if you say there are is no God, you are clearly not talking about my God.
So, in your perspective, there is a God. You have a personal God, which may or may not actually exist for other people.
Also, your questions are superstitious. You have superstitious ideas about God. If you believe me, your questions would be revealed as being superstitious.
I don't think you know what "superstitious" means.
All you have to do is accept that God with a capital "G" is defined as "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality", otherwise, you are not talking about the same thing as me.
I'm talking about god, God, gods, Gods. Overall. Altogether.
Again, that is YOUR definition of God. That is not the universally accepted definition of God.
Just because you believe it to be so doesn't mean that it is.
There is no such thing as a universally accepted definition.
Your whole argument is that language is arbitrary.
I am talking about something beyond language, but you can't believe language long enough to even see that. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is clearly something beyond words.
This is why sincere faith alone is not sufficient to love God. It must also be coupled with charity. Without charity, you block yourself off from really understanding viewpoints you don't want to agree with. If you are wrong, you aren't really ever going to figure that out.
Sincerity of faith and charity is the path of correction.
I recommend Merriam-Webster, they have a fine dictionary on their website. If you want to have a serious discussion, it is important that we have a standard that defines the language we are using.
There is no such thing as a universally accepted definition.
Point proven. Language is subjective.
Your whole argument is that language is arbitrary.
No, my argument is that language is subjective. There is logic to language, but we cannot use language to define something into existence.
I am talking about something beyond language, but you can't believe language long enough to even see that.
You're right, if a God does exist, He's beyond language, hence why calling Him "the supreme and ultimate reality" is ultimately meaningless. The universe defines our language, our language doesn't define it.
We use words such as "supreme" and "ultimate" to highlight something that's beyond our grasp. That doesn't mean that something which is beyond our grasp has to exist.
No one has to prove The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
You might as well say, "prove to me that it is true that there is truth".
You openly admit that you are coming from a place of arbitrariness, what more can I do to rebut you? Truth stands clear apart from error.
The fluidity of language is not relevant. There is a different word for "God" in every language. You think I'm talking about an arbitrary pronouncement of syllables with an interpretive meaning.
Effective or ineffective communication has very little to do with the surety that The God I speak of clearly exists, and you are delusional to think otherwise or even question it. You don't stand on anything if you are in doubt.
Why do you not see what is obvious? Because you won't believe what I'm saying long enough to understand what you are disputing.
By the way, the issue you are having with God is practically the overarching theme of The New Testament.
Bet you didn't know that.
The solution to your problem is The Trinity, if you only knew how your issue is exactly what The Trinity solves.
I think you do yourself a disservice by calling my "delusional" simply because I do not agree with the view point that God's definition proves his existence. I do not doubt God's existence, I just do not support it either. I neither believe nor disbelieve.
By the way, the issue you are having with me right now is practically the major overarching theme of The New Testament.
Redemption and salvation? I think you'll have to elaborate a bit more on that.
You disrespect my point of view for saying I am calling you delusional for not agreeing with the viewpoint that God's definition proves his existence.
No, the definition of God establishes what we are talking about.
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
Why won't you accept this definition? Because you want the definition that doesn't make your viewpoint stupid. Yes, to even be on the fence about this is foolish if you understand my position.
You don't understand my position, because you are too busy disputing about the meaning of words and language. I am not questioning your integrity, I believe this can be sorted out.
The solution to your problem is in The Trinity.
The most perfect conception of reality we have is not reality as it truly is. We call reality as it truly is "God". You can only know this by the spirit of truth.
That's the trinity right there. Great mystery, eh?
That is what words are. IF you make language arbitrary, that means the spirit of truth is not in you, because you are not interested in communication. The only thing you are doing is sowing chaos, discord, and variance.
Because I don't agree with that definition. It's really that simple.
That is what words are. IF you make language arbitrary, that means the spirit of truth is not in you, because you are not interested in communication. The only thing you are doing is sowing chaos, discord, and variance.
We use representations to communicate. They are not there to prove the existence of things.
I'm flattered you think I'm such a demonic character. What sort of chaos am I sowing? Is it the whole gay sex thing? Forgive me father.
You are the one who is arrogant if you think your science falsely so called could ever undermine The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, God Almighty.
My science? What science? I've stated multiple times that I think it's unwise to make absolute statements about God's existence. Maybe he does exist, maybe he doesn't. There's no argument which proves or disproves him.
The ontological argument is an argument from logic, but I see atheism as more logical because, overall, there's more logical atheistic arguments.
There is no question of God. The God I speak of is not some "theory".
"Those are human-made words. There is no absolute logic which links the fabric of the universe and our reality to our language. An alien society in another galaxy might have the definition of God as something which doesn't exist in the real world. Their "anti-ontological" argument would be just as legitimate - and logical - as yours."
I say,
"The name that can be named is not the eternal name"
"Your concept of God is that he exists because he must exist - because you say so, because human language proves it through definitions of "ultimate" and "supreme" and "existence"."
I swear, it's like you don't know what a definition is.
Definition of definition
1 a : a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol
b : a statement expressing the essential nature of something
c : a product of defining
2 : the action or process of stating the meaning of a word or word group
3 a : the action or the power of describing, explaining, or making definite and clear the definition of a telescope her comic genius is beyond definition
b (1) : clarity of visual presentation : distinctness of outline or detail improve the definition of an image (2) : clarity especially of musical sound in reproduction
c : sharp demarcation of outlines or limits
4 : an act of determining
~~~
No, you don't get it at all. The purpose of the definition is to make clear what it is that is meant by "God".
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. The Supreme Being.
Every academically respected dictionary backs up what it is that I am trying to communicate to you. You can't just arbitrarily decide that you are the determiner of what words mean and claim equal authority when it comes to the defining of terms to say, THE OXFORD or something.
The thing is, it makes sense that someone who doesn't believe in The Supreme and Ultimate Reality would be without any standards. You have embraced arbitrariness.
You may say, "I don't know", but you are still adopting the position of atheist. You do not believe in the existence of God.
See, I don't know. Why do I not know? Because I understand epistemology. I understand science. It is because of that I can say, "I don't know".
But there is one thing I am absolutely certain of. I am more certain of the existence of God than I am in even my own existence. I am more certain of the existence of God than anything else. I am uncertain about everything else. That is where the science leads. Why can't you see it?
If you do not have this level of certainty, there is no way you could possibly be looking at the same thing as me. If you were, you'd see you've already performed the necessary scientific experiments to be certain about God.
Yet, you can't even accept a simple definition. This makes any knowledge on your part impossible. You are embracing willful ignorance. Debating over the definition of a word that ties in precisely with a universally recognized concept.
THE TRUTH.
You don't know The Truth. You don't have to know The Truth to believe that The Truth exists.
Until I see logic on the side of theism I will "believe" the side that shows the MOST logic. There is only one side that does, so, I am ATHEISTIC. Simple.
I'm back to "crazy"?? What happened to "insane"? It sounded much more intellectual. Oh, well, we have to make considerations for mindset. I'll wait for your ridiculousness next time, okay, Scum?? Didn't mean to upstage (or upset) you. We have to be careful when dealing with the mentally challenged, I realize that ... my mistake.
Your friend .. Ol' Crazy Al, signing off ... with apologies.
One of the most established facts about the book of mormon is that Joseph smith did posses the plates. 11 official witnesses, and several unofficial witnesses. None of them, throughout their entire lives, denied it. They all confirmed it every chance the got. I’m not kidding, you can do research on these people from the day they say them to the day they died, and none of them ever denied it. Even after a few of them left the church, they still said that they saw them, never once saying that it didn’t happen.
What we also know now is that several ancient documents have been preserved the same way that Joseph Smith found them. The Copper Scroll and other items found by the dead sea are almost a complete parallel, and coincidentally around the same time the book of mormon was placed underground. Several of documents of the same fashon have been found in hillsides to preserve the right before millitary disaster for future generations. But how would joseph Smith had known that?
The book of mormon also claims to be written in “reformed egyptian’, and according to historians this means modified egyptian characters, and we now know that several ancient documents have been written precisely in that fashon. But how would Joseph Smith have known that?
The title page of the Book of Mormon claims that it was translated “through the power of God”, and this is exactly what would have had to happen. Evidence indicates that Joseph Smith woud have to have written 8.5 pages a day.
Additionally, there is no evidence that joseph Smith did very much reading at all before the book of mormon appeared. He may not have even owned a bible at the time of the translation. He spent most of his childhood doing farm and landwork, and revieved at most a few months of schooling. Even his own mother said that he was much less inclined to read books that her other children. His wife in the late 1820s said that he “could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well worded letter, let alone dictate a book like the Book of Mormon. … The larger part of this labor [of translation] was done [in] my presence and where I could see and know what was being done. … During no part of it did Joseph Smith have any [manuscripts] or book of any kind from which to read or dictate except the metalic [sic] plates which I knew he had.” 15 “If,” “he had had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me.” Many anti Mormon claims say that, oh, Joseph smith just made up the entire book, perfectly what a teenager with an immagination would write. This is completely wrong. Anybody who reads the Book of Mormon will confirm that an illiterate teenager could most definately not write a book like the book of Mormon. His wife also said that joseph Smith, after an interuption, could just start reading again. No asking, ‘where was i again?”, or “What was the last sentence I said?”.
I qoute lds.org, “And research shows that the book does not seem to fit the culture of early 19th-century America. There is little of the military romanticism of Joseph Smith’s America. Instead, we see grimly realistic portrayals of war’s devastation and suffering. And in the story of the Gadianton robbers we have a detailed, realistic portrayal of a prolonged guerrilla struggle—lacking any trace of fife and drum, uniforms, or parades—published well over a century before the guerrilla theorists of the 20th century put pens to paper.”
The Book of Mormon’s description of Jerusalem are strangely accurate, and a reaserch proresses everything said beomes more and more possible. The name Saria, Lehi’s wife, has been found on documents of ancient egypt. And the name Nephi belongs to the exact time and place of the time the story takes place. But how would Joseph Smith have known this?
Nephi’s visoin is deeply rooted in near eastern symbolism. and , hi predictions are strikingly acurate. His description of Columbus, “And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land.” With the publication of Columbas’s private “Book of Prophecies”, quoting lds.org, “He said he was guided by the Holy Spirit, and he was eager not only to spread Christianity but to fulfill biblical prophecies. Among his favorite passages were John 10:16, with its reference to “other sheep,” and the passages of Isaiah concerning the people on the “isles of the sea.” 25 These are the very passages that the Book of Mormon applies to itself.” But how would Joseph Smith have known this?
Additionally, Nephi’s description of his families journey across the Arbian pennensula is strikingly accurate. But nobody, not even any 19th centery schollar could have known about this.
:belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically :belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world
~~~~
Definition of god courtesy of merriam-webster
1 capitalized :the supreme or ultimate reality: such as
a :the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
~~~~~
Theism is faith in ultimate reality.
To clarify...
Definition of faith courtesy of merriam-webster
"something that is believed especially with strong conviction"
~~~~
Atheism is defined by merriam-webster as
Definition of atheism
1 a :a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b :a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
2 archaic :godlessness especially in conduct :ungodliness, wickedness
~~~~
Notice that the definition does not actually include the word "God" in it. It uses the word "god". If you do not believe in "God", there can be no "God", only "god" or "gods".
Atheism is not logical. In fact, atheism completely undermines logic. The atheist does not actually believe in truth. To say, "I do not believe in God" is to say, "I do not believe in truth". All assertions are rendered arbitrary.
Atheism cannot be more logical than theism, as the position of atheism is fundamentally a denial of logic.
We have proof the flying dragons don't exist, but we do have proof for an all powerful creator. Did you think I would say it's because I can't see it, or detect it? We have proof for a God, not Incorporeal, Undetectable, flying dragons.
You have absolutely no proof of anything which is objective, since everything you see, feel or touch is part of your own subjective, first-person experience. Even things which can be independently verified through the experiences of other people are also part of your own subjective, first person experience. You cannot prove anything exists or does not exist, including reality itself.
I myself am not an atheist, however I can see the logic from this point of view. Thus, I am not going to go "God says, this that and the other." Atheists have a right to their opinion without being persecuted as all else do. Besides, some people need more tangible truth, and to be honest Christ gave us none. The Bible was written by humanity not God and we have no physical proof of his existence. I personally avoid the Bible due to its offensive nature. EX: Comments on homosexuals. I study scripture from almost all cultures, including Jew, Islamic, Buddhist, and even Hindu. There is knowledge and wisdom in every culture. With a God or not.
I myself am not an atheist, however I can see the logic from this point of view. Thus, I am not going to go "God says, this that and the other." Atheists have a right to their opinion without being persecuted as all else do. Besides, some people need more tangible truth, and to be honest Christ gave us none. The Bible was written by humanity not God and we have no physical proof of his existence. I personally avoid the Bible due to its offensive nature. EX: Comments on homosexuals. I study scripture from almost all cultures, including Jew, Islamic, Buddhist, and even Hindu. There is knowledge and wisdom in every culture. With a God or not.
It sounds like you are more a scholar of religion than a follower of it.
As I understand it there are thousands of planets in our universe capable of supporting Life as we know it. Do they all worship the same God? and did Jesus the Sun of God visit Bethlehem on all these planets?
Supporting life. We never said that they did have life on them. And even if they did, we also don't know that they are intelligent life forms. (Intelligent enough to believe in a God or not).
Atheism is more logical because theists are making an affirmative claim which they cannot support with material evidence. There's an old saying which applies about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence.
However, atheism itself is not entirely logical because the possibility of God does still exist, regardless of its lack of evidence. Unfortunately, there is no way one can answer an unanswerable yes or no question while remaining logical. Personally, I identify as agnostic, but I reject all religion and consider myself to lean very heavily towards atheism, due to what I view as the relative probabilities involved that either side is correct.
Theists choose God because they believe in him. Many atheists choose no God because they get to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. There is no moral accountability in atheism. Theists choose God for a logical reason. Atheists choose no God simply because they don't want there to be a God or because they don't want moral accountability.
Most atheists also believe in evolution. Correct me if I'm wrong, but science has found more evidence supporting creationism/creation science than it has for evolution. If we have not found any evidence pointing towards evolution, then it is not logical to still believe in it. If we have found evidence supporting creationism/creation science then it would be illogical to not even consider it.
Theists choose God for a logical reason. Atheists choose no God simply because they don't want there to be a God or because they don't want moral accountability.
You have things entirely backwards. Atheists don't believe in God because rather than just have faith they would rather base their beliefs in evidence and logic. Theists use God to project their arbitrary morality as if it is an objective truth when in fact it is a subjective opinion and a social construct. You are confusing the world of the subjective mind with universal law, it takes maturity, empathy and intelligence to realize this and still exact righteousness unto mankind. It takes nothing but fear and superstition to act righteously to avoid going to hell.
science has found more evidence supporting creationism/creation science than it has for evolution.
Wow, I had no idea!!...so like, what is the evidence? Here is some evidence for evolution.
You say, "There is no point believing in something you can't know or produce evidence for."
But what does the word "God" mean? The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
You cannot know God, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about God. Accepting God is admitting that there is a higher reality than what you observe to be reality. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is by nature greater than any conception one can have of it.
If you truly believe that there is reality at all, the essence of this is God. You can't believe reality without believing in God. There can be no such thing as reality without God. Yet, as you can clearly observe, there is some form of existence. There is some reality.
The God that I speak of clearly exists, and without it, there is no science. Perhaps your conception of God is superstitious. There is no doubt about the existence of God. There is nothing else you can be more sure of.
I'm quite familiar with William Lane Craig and his arguments. Let me begin by pointing out that nearly all of his public debates begin with him stating that he will not attempt to support the Christian God, or the Bible. And yet, he identifies as a Christian. From there he can be counted upon to dive into the Kalam Cosmological Argument which fails from the very beginning, and thus provides a false conclusion. The argument begins by putting forth the following premises;
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
2. The universe began to exist;
It is then claimed that the universe therefore has a cause. But the premises are faulty from the very start. Science holds that the universe - as we know it - began to exist about 13.72 billion years ago through an event known as Big Bang. But Big Bang doesn't begin with a state of nothingness. There are several flavors of Big Bang Cosmology, each of which starts with a singularity, or brane worlds, or the component of what we might consider to be "nothing", which gives it weight. And this weight property of nothingness has been fully confirmed. What has not been confirmed is that a true state of nothingness - devoid even of weight - can actually exist. Attempts at producing such a state have all failed, with virtual particles popping into and out of the produced void, at a frantic rate.
Big Bang is not a creation event. It is a transformation event known as a "phase transition". Nothing comes into existence from non-existence and we have no evidence whatsoever of any state of absolute nothingness. This is an imaginary state which exists in the minds of theists, simply to allow them to proclaim that their God has actually done something. So Craig (who is borrowing an argument), is ignoring the fact that we have no examples of creation, no evidence of creation, and that creation itself would be a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
His argument - which you have borrowed - therefore fails the test of logic. It fails on both premises. Why must something have a cause, simply because it begins to exist? And how can anything begin to exist? It's nothing more than an appeal to magic. And why would this only apply to things which BEGIN TO EXIST? That's a bit of special pleading - which again is an appeal to a fallacy.
That's not really likely. My name comes from an nick-name given to me by an old girlfriend (about 24-years ago). She called me "Beasttie", and it was meant as an affectionate term. When we broke-up was about the time Internet was becoming available and when I signed up, I needed a name as an online presence. So I shortened it to "Beastt" with absolutely no religious connotation. I was a theist at the time, as was she. But of course, when theists find they have no rational argument to the points I raise, they instantly try to point to the name, which makes as much sense as trying to associate the names they pick with comic book characters.
You're making a bad assumption. As I've explained, my online name has NOTHING TO DO with theism, and I adopted that name (or rather, it was given to me), by a theist when I was a theist. So perhaps you should try addressing the original points I made, and/or further arguments since that point.
For example; the first challenge simply provided a video where William Lane Craig is borrowing the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It begins with the premise that all things which begin to exist have a cause.
They do? How do we know this? What logic brings us to that conclusion? In reality, the only logical conclusion is that nothing begins to exist. It may transform, but it either exists to begin with, or it doesn't. So the first premise is based entirely on a conjectural condition, for another conjectural condition. It cannot therefore be considered to be logical, it's simply made up out of imagination. Everything else in the KCA unfolds from that failed premise, leading the entire argument to crumble.
So perhaps I can entice you to respond to that, rather than inaccurate assumptions about names used as an online presence?
I agree that this 'William Lane Craig' is a hair's breadth away from total lunacy, and when you see him debate you can not help hating the guy. You have to stop watching so that you can calm down enough to not want to slap him across the face with a stocking full of shite. Atheism is, by far, the most logical stance.
And if you've watched enough of WLC's debates, you begin to notice that he's been using the same argument for nearly all of his debates, for more than 20-years. It seems to soothe the nerves of theists, but it's a failed argument from the very first premise. One has to consider that he's apparently intelligent enough to realize that the argument fails on the logical arena, and is simply continuing to utilize it because he has nothing else to offer, and it makes him almost a folk hero among theists who have no interest in the logic (or lack thereof), and focus only upon the bias he presents... which appeals to them.
I don't know about WLC, but what is the problem with this argument?
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence."
The point here seems to be that if the universe did in fact begin to exist, it didn't just poof here out of nothing.
So what is your problem with the first premise, that "Everything that begins to exist has a cause"? You say it is a failed argument from the very first premise.
Being logical is like being pregnant.. You either ARE, or you're NOT.. Believing, all by itself, is logical.. It's what humans do. WHAT one believes in is another matter..
To clarify, when we choose beliefs, they should be on the basis of the objective evidence - all known objective evidence. Theists, however, have been taught that they should choose evidence on the basis of their beliefs, rather than choosing their beliefs on the basis of evidence.
And that kind of disingenuous methodology can lead to the support of any claim. As an example, they could decide that Christians are less likely to develop cancer. Since the statistics don't bear that out, they simply reject the statistical evidence. Instead they list a number of Christians they know personally who haven't had cancer, and try to find the names of some atheists who have. And because that selective evidence agrees with their pre-conceived conclusion, they accept it. This is exactly what flat-Earthers do, and they're nearly all simply cult-member spin-offs of Christianity. But that's another topic.
To clarify, when we choose beliefs, they should be on the basis of the objective evidence
So you say..
But, whether the evidence IS objective is the subject of another debate.. That one BELIEVES, no matter what it IS that they believe in, is what humans do, and is highly logical..
And yet science has no difficulty separating objective evidence from subjective evidence. Objective evidence is that which is demonstrably tied to that for which it serves as evidence. Subjective evidence is that which must have an interpretation applied which can be seen as either supportive, or non-supportive.
Sadly, religion teaches people to adhere only to subjective evidence (unless objective evidence supports their stance), and to appeal to emotional biases above all else. That's really what "strong faith" is; holding to an emotional bias above all objective and rational arguments to the contrary. It's a vow to dishonesty and a lack of objectivity.
I don't believe you can speak about all theists. Why do you attack the most superstitious of the theists? It is a reflection of your own superstition. This is what you think God is.
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is God.
There is nothing else you can be more sure of existing.
Atheists say there is no other material other than the physical. I only feel air(heavy enough to feel), you add hydrogen and it becomes heavier ; water, add colour it has more physical material definition.
But are there substances lighter than air? yes.
Well, is that the limit? who knows?
I know. The faster a body radiates/vibrates,(such as boiling and evaporation), gradually it loses some amount of physical opaque qualities to translucent, transparent, then invisible.
There are conscious intelligent beings radiating at high speeds even escaping light and they have their own light like a glow worm.
That is the level of body speed they were made naturally.
However, they have control over their speed.
They can penetrate or stay in any slower radiating material like walls,trees, animals/human bodies, plastics, woods etc.
If they slow down over 2000 times their radiation speed, we will see them.
Yet they will still be stronger than us.
Yes they also feel slow at times if they choose to ignore the human nature because they are able see each other too as in a state of solid enough for them to attack each other just like humans are slow enough for each other.
I feel radiation in my body, don't you?
It increases when you are usually angry.
In this situation of faster radiation, you turn to be stronger, faster than how you usually react.
You smash, lift,push etc heavy things you couldn't have if you weren't angry
The human body happens to be one of the most slowest radiating mateials in the universe. If light is faster than our slow radiating eye balls, how can we see what is faster than light especially if it's a concious entity of higher intelligence than man.
The human body is an earth space suit.
Human ourselves are like them but can come to self realisation if we achieve astral projection and we will be unlimited in abilities except to one, the creator with a stronger material.
We penetrate and stayed in a slower radiating material we call our bodies(full of filthy sweetness that weakens our real selves)
Our real selve strength tries to show up when we get angry.
We should study light, and advancement of cameras.
The more intelligent should further advance to astral projection.
Atheists dont say there is only the physical. They say there is only the NATURAL. So yes there are substances lighter than air. but theyre natural substances. We test these things with science.
All you did was list off a bunch of natural processes and their natural properties.
If by "book knowledge" you mean the entire wealth of human knowledge amassed to date then that is all there is. Prove theres such a knowledge beyond that. Youre just claiming anecdotal bullshit at that point unless you demonstrate otherwise.
If i cited a scientists work then isn't that book knowledge??....a scientist guided by traditional books doing regular traditional experiments....how special can his/hers be compared to the others!?!; that i would be wasting precious time boasting about here on CD?
I am talking about experiences and observations i didn't know i will need accounting for in the future which is today(or tomorrow which never comes), so i didn't bother suming up/compiling hard material evidence(site, taste, feel etc) for and even if i had known i wasn't equiped, i couldn't have afforded and i don't even believe such equipments for that particular measurement has been invented(Necessity is the mother of invention)....
If i cited a scientists work then isn't that book knowledge??
Yeah PROVEN book knowledge. You act like a fact loses its "truthfullness" as soon as its transferred onto paper as writing.
Uh, no. If i drop this bottle i have then gravity will make it drop.
Oh look it dropped. Me typing that didnt change that fact.
....a scientist guided by traditional books doing regular traditional experiments....how special can his/hers be compared to the others!?!;
If by traditional you mean by the scientific method then why the fuck would you want it any other way?
This statement shows me you have no fucking clue how science works or what the scientific process even is.
that i would be wasting precious time boasting about here on CD?
I am wondering why youre wasting precious time that could be spent researching what the fuck youre talking about.
I am talking about experiences and observations i didn't know i will need accounting for in the future which is today(or tomorrow which never comes), so i didn't bother suming up/compiling hard material evidence(site, taste, feel etc) for and even if i had known i wasn't equiped, i couldn't have afforded and i don't even believe such equipments for that particular measurement has been invented(Necessity is the mother of invention)....
I honestly read this twice and cant figure out what the honest fuck youre talking about.
All i can say is not presenting hard evidence is a good way to have people doubt you. And theyd be right to do so.
"book knowledge" from scientists that you previously complained about always has that hard evidence. Not only that but its peer reviewed and experiments are tested and re verified repeatedly.
If what youre presenting cant match that then your beliefs can go take a fuckin hike as far as im concerned. Im trying to find out what is true and that requires rigorous testing and retesting and debunking. Not "i didnt bother suming up/compiling hard material" because "tomorrow never comes"
God is by definition supernatural. If you cant measure it, observe it, detect it, quantify it, ect. it aint natural.
Also ive thoroughly debunked your "supreme and ultimate reality" concept.
But yes, it is natural. Because its entirely indistinguishable from just "reality". And reality is the natural world around us. Which is by definition natural.
Saying you've thoroughly debunked something doesn't mean you've done anything.
Anyone can say that. I say you're wrong. Does your word carry more weight than mine? You can claim to appeal to argument, but I could claim the same thing. I am not appealing to argument though, I am appealing to The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, and there is no meaningful argument against this.
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality obviously exists, and I believe this is apparent when you understand what those words mean when they are strung together.
The essence of reality is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. If there is reality at all, God is necessary.
You not being able to see this does not make it any less true.
Saying "If you can't measure it, observe it, detect it, quantify it, etc." has little to do with being natural. In fact, one could argue that many of these processes are in fact ARTIFICIAL.
So what are you disagreeing on fundamentally?
You have an aversion to God because of how you see it being used. You have an aversion to God because you can't get passed things like culture and representations of things. Oddly enough, you claim to not have this problem with the concept of "reality" even though it has been misused in the same way.
So what are we disagreeing about? I don't share your aversion. I don't share your aversion because I see how the aversion to God is actually worse than coming to terms with God.
Homicide cures cancer though, right? You can treat dandruff by decapitation, right?
Saying you've thoroughly debunked something doesn't mean you've done anything.
It does when I indeed have and we both know it.
Anyone can say that. I say you're wrong.
And i say based on the precedent set in our last debate thats an absurd rejection to make.
Does your word carry more weight than mine?
No. but I'm right.
You can claim to appeal to argument, but I could claim the same thing.
Youd actually cite your last performance? Yeesh. Thats embarrassing.
I am not appealing to argument though, I am appealing to The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, and there is no meaningful argument against this.
I made several. Namely that you cannot differentiate in any way whatsoever how or in what way "supreme and ultimate reality" is distinguishable from just "reality".
Also i found it ridiculous that your primary gripe over definitions in a dictionary was immediately abandoned once you turned to this "supreme and ultimate reality" argument, seeing as that term exists nowhere in the dictionary. Its just some concept you Frankenstein stitched together. And i reject your invented concept. And my reasons for doing so as stated before are pretty clear.
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality obviously exists,
Yes, reality exists. What retardedly redundant statement.
The essence of reality is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
What an even MORE retardedly redundant statement. Also a meaningless one. The fuck does essence of even mean? How do you take all of reality and synthesize it down to an essence? What the fuck does that even mean?
I believe this is apparent
HEY! Theres a single shred of honesty from you. You admit this is just your belief. And thats fine. Have your ridiculous belief. But if you actually want to make an argument for what IS real, not just what you BELIEVE is real then you actually have to PROVE that things are the way you believe them to be.
when you understand what those words mean when they are strung together.
So you admit you just invented this concept. So it comes from your human mind. Making it immediately subject to intense scrutiny as any christian would assert.
If there is reality at all, God is necessary.
Baseless bullshit.
You could insert anything in for God. If there is reality at all Krishna is necessary. If there is reality at all then there must be kangaroos on jupiter. If reality exists at all then there are mole men at the center of my colon plotting to overthrow trump.
See? I can make up bullshit too. You cant just assert that "if A there must be B" and have that mean ANYTHING about reality without inserting a process of demonstrating that connection between A and B. Unless the process of A to B was obvious and apparent. Like if A) i dump water on your head then B) your head will become wet.
That would be obvious. But even THEN someone could still pose the question of how A leads to B.
You want so hard to be able to just type words and cite a few definitions and POOF god actually becomes existent in our physical reality. But you dont want to have to do ANY of the work of actually demonstrating that to be the case. You just play word games in an attempt to necessitate thats the case.
Sorry. you cant necessitate things into reality that we havent already proven to be integral to the fabric of reality. Youre just ASSERTING that god is integral to that fabric and doing none of the work to demonstrate that is the case.
You not being able to see this does not make it any less true.
Youre right. My perception has no bearing on its legitimacy. It's your inability to demonstrate it which makes it untrue.
Saying "If you can't measure it, observe it, detect it, quantify it, etc." has little to do with being natural.
WRONG. It has literally EVERYTHING to do with that. Youre a fucking idiot to deny that. There is no way to demonstrate that anything is natural without these things.
In fact, one could argue that many of these processes are in fact ARTIFICIAL.
Because the naturally occurring and operating human brain came up with them? Yeah no.
So what are you disagreeing on fundamentally?
That "supreme and ultimate reality" is in ANY WAY distinguishable from just reality itself.
I disagree with your baseless assertion that reality necessitates god just because you slapped 2 redundant labels onto the word reality.
I reject your idea of how you think forming a proof works and actually making a case for something existing WITHIN reality despite how completely devoted to that concept your argument is.
I reject that in a normal conversation between two people who obviously know what eachother is referring to that the capitalization of the word god somehow changes what theyre talking about.
I reject alot of stupid shit youve said.
"You have an aversion to God because of how you see it being used.
If i am talking to someone and I have an idea of god in my head and they have the same idea of god in their head and we agree on that same concept then my POINT is that in that case it doesnt fucking MATTER if god is capitalized or not. You insisting I use one or the other doesnt actually change how im understanding and using the concept so IT DOESNT FUCKING MATTER. I dont have an aversion to god i have an aversion to your nitpicky bullshit argument that capitalizing a G vastly changes what were talking about. Words are only useful insofar as they relay information. And when i fucking tell you to your face WE ARE IN AGREEMENT ON WHAT GOD MEANS then from that point forward capitalizing the word god is a fucking formality not a requirement.
UNLESS before the argument we agreed on two set terms: god means X and God means Y. THEN it makes sense to differentiate because youre trying to be ACCURATE in what youre saying.
Christ the fact that i have to actually explain how laymans english works to you is astounding.
You have an aversion to God because you can't get passed things like culture and representations of things.
What the fuck is god and religion if NOT all of those things? At least to a degree. Thats another thing i reject. Your divorcing of god in all of his physical qualities from all of the cultural qualities hes also associated with. If not from those cultural texts then where the fuck would you even aquired a concept of god in the first place?
Oddly enough, you claim to not have this problem with the concept of "reality" even though it has been misused in the same way.
You cited the word yourself and i agreed with YOUR proposed definition of it. In fact, ive agreed with essentially ALL of your arguments thusfar. I stopped accepting them once you invented your own concept and failed to explain how its distinctly different from how you had previously defined reality. Thus i rejected the core of your argument and thus your necessitation of god into existence.
So what are we disagreeing about? I don't share your aversion. I don't share your aversion because I see how the aversion to God is actually worse than coming to terms with God.
That means absolutely nothing to the facts of the argument we just had. Its just pleading nonsense because, again, i have no aversion to god. A god could exist for all i care. But im not going to believe in one without proof of it. And reality is not proof. And if reality aint proof then supreme and ultimate reality isnt proof either, because for the 45965th time you have not explained in any way how its different than reality.
Homicide cures cancer though, right?
For someone so entirely hung up on definitions you dont even know what the fuck cure means.
First, I will begin by delineating a premise. While arguments for atheism substantiate the most evidence, theism is, unlike atheism, predicated on a consistent principle-based approach to reasoning, whereas atheism cannot formulate a consistent definition of reasoning without looking to subjective presuppositions about the nature of reasoning. In fact, atheism presupposes that truth can be reasoned despite believing that evolution is arbitrarily determined by whether or not a select trait is conducive to survival. The reason for why I believe this is a fallacy is due to the fact that truth is only arbitrarily conducive to survival. In other words, truth only promotes survival under certain circumstances. I would add that a complex knowledge of physics and philosophy does not promote survival in any way. I would even posit that it does the opposite. So why should we trust our 'cogent' arguments? Maybe we should not. However, if we choose to trust our reasoning, it should be to reason that God exists, because the predicate for studying the stars was in order to apprehend God's works. Is it reasonable to dissociate our reasoning of the universe from the presupposition that God exists? I think not. After all, the scientific movement would likely not have happened without a religious foundation. Thus, reasoning would not have developed if not for theism. A common argument proposed by atheists is that the universe can be derived from nothing. I find this to be a straw man, because to make this argument, one must redefine nothing to mean condensed anti particles and particles. This is clearly not nothing. I would propose that God fills the role well as the first cause, because he, hypothetically, is immaterial and timeless. Only a being beyond time could create time, and only a being beyond space could create space. Moreover, the argument that something came from nothing creates the problem of infinite regression. What created that 'nothing.' If that can be answered, what created that? All of this being said, science should still be approached from an atheistic perspective, and values should not be imposed on large masses with little or no basis for the assumptions that they are founded on. But this is predominantly a metaphysical argument, and thus it goes beyond mere science.
theism is, unlike atheism, predicated on a consistent principle-based approach to reasoning
You laughable halfwit. Theism is predicated on reason in the same way that Santa Claus and the tooth fairy are predicated on reason. Making shit up because you can't explain the reality you live in is the opposite of reason, dopey.
First, I will begin by delineating a premise. While arguments for atheism substantiate the most evidence, theism is, unlike atheism, predicated on a consistent principle-based approach to reasoning, whereas atheism cannot formulate a consistent definition of reasoning without looking to subjective presuppositions about the nature of reasoning.
All reasoning is subjective. Humans arbitrate reasoning. All evidence points to this. There is no evidence to the contrary.
In fact, atheism presupposes that truth can be reasoned despite believing that evolution is arbitrarily determined by whether or not a select trait is conducive to survival. The reason for why I believe this is a fallacy is due to the fact that truth is only arbitrarily determined by whether or not a select trait is conducive to survival.
It isn't arbitrarily determined. Biochemistry naturally makes complex molecules.
While I'm sympathetic to your argument that, vis a vis an evolutionary standard, we may not always want to be reasonable... that does not mean that it is atheism is illogical. It just means that if atheism is logical then it may not always be in our interests to be atheists.
As for your claim that reasoning would not have developed if not for theism, that's an incredible stretch. Reasoning is a separate cognitive process from the faith disposition, and while they may interrelate there's no inherent causal relation supported by any evidence.
Being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I hear the other side of this argument a lot. What separates our church from other churches? We have evidence.
One of the most established facts about the book of mormon is that Joseph smith did posses the plates. 11 official witnesses, and several unofficial witnesses. None of them, throughout their entire lives, denied it. They all confirmed it every chance the got. I’m not kidding, you can do research on these people from the day they say them to the day they died, and none of them ever denied it. Even after a few of them left the church, they still said that they saw them, never once saying that it didn’t happen.
What we also know now is that several ancient documents have been preserved the same way that Joseph Smith found them. The Copper Scroll and other items found by the dead sea are almost a complete parallel, and coincidentally around the same time the book of mormon was placed underground. Several of documents of the same fashon have been found in hillsides to preserve the right before millitary disaster for future generations. But how would joseph Smith had known that?
The book of mormon also claims to be written in “reformed egyptian’, and according to historians this means modified egyptian characters, and we now know that several ancient documents have been written precisely in that fashon. But how would Joseph Smith have known that?
The title page of the Book of Mormon claims that it was translated “through the power of God”, and this is exactly what would have had to happen. Evidence indicates that Joseph Smith woud have to have written 8.5 pages a day.
Additionally, there is no evidence that joseph Smith did very much reading at all before the book of mormon appeared. He may not have even owned a bible at the time of the translation. He spent most of his childhood doing farm and landwork, and revieved at most a few months of schooling. Even his own mother said that he was much less inclined to read books that her other children. His wife in the late 1820s said that he “could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well worded letter, let alone dictate a book like the Book of Mormon. … The larger part of this labor [of translation] was done [in] my presence and where I could see and know what was being done. … During no part of it did Joseph Smith have any [manuscripts] or book of any kind from which to read or dictate except the metalic [sic] plates which I knew he had.” 15 “If,” “he had had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me.” Many anti Mormon claims say that, oh, Joseph smith just made up the entire book, perfectly what a teenager with an immagination would write. This is completely wrong. Anybody who reads the Book of Mormon will confirm that an illiterate teenager could most definately not write a book like the book of Mormon. His wife also said that joseph Smith, after an interuption, could just start reading again. No asking, ‘where was i again?”, or “What was the last sentence I said?”.
I qoute lds.org, “And research shows that the book does not seem to fit the culture of early 19th-century America. There is little of the military romanticism of Joseph Smith’s America. Instead, we see grimly realistic portrayals of war’s devastation and suffering. And in the story of the Gadianton robbers we have a detailed, realistic portrayal of a prolonged guerrilla struggle—lacking any trace of fife and drum, uniforms, or parades—published well over a century before the guerrilla theorists of the 20th century put pens to paper.”
The Book of Mormon’s description of Jerusalem are strangely accurate, and a reaserch proresses everything said beomes more and more possible. The name Saria, Lehi’s wife, has been found on documents of ancient egypt. And the name Nephi belongs to the exact time and place of the time the story takes place. But how would Joseph Smith have known this?
Nephi’s visoin is deeply rooted in near eastern symbolism. and , hi predictions are strikingly acurate. His description of Columbus, “And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land.” With the publication of Columbas’s private “Book of Prophecies”, quoting lds.org, “He said he was guided by the Holy Spirit, and he was eager not only to spread Christianity but to fulfill biblical prophecies. Among his favorite passages were John 10:16, with its reference to “other sheep,” and the passages of Isaiah concerning the people on the “isles of the sea.” 25 These are the very passages that the Book of Mormon applies to itself.” But how would Joseph Smith have known this?
Additionally, Nephi’s description of his families journey across the Arbian pennensula is strikingly accurate. But nobody, not even any 19th centery schollar could have known about this.
My argument is simple, the chance of a Jesus fulfilling all the old testament prophecies is as likely as a person choosing a marked, yet undetectable quarter, if Texas was covered in two layers of quarters. Furthermore, the pharasies did not deny Jesus's miracles, at the risk of being stoned to death, but instead claimed demonic influence.
if you have heard of Pascal's wager you know that he said that if you believe in God and atheism is correct, you lose practically nothing, but if you are an atheist, and God is real, you suffer eternal damnation.
Pascal's wager is incredibly lame , you're a believer yet if you've picked the wrong God and Allah is the one true God he will consign you also to a lake of fire
1 a :a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b :a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
~~~~
The important thing to note here is that the definition of atheism does not use the word "God" with a capital "G", but "god" with a lower case "g".
Atheists who deny God with a capital G are absolutely foolish, because the God they are denying is by Merriam-Webster's definition, "The supreme and/or ultimate reality". To deny such an entity is preposterous.
Little "g" god on the other hand is defined by Merriam-Webster as...
"a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship"
Without knowing how to recognize these beings, it would be very easy to dismiss these gods as nonexistent. Surely they do exist, but they are by nature created beings.
Another definition from Merriam-Webster that might be easier to grab on to is...
"a powerful ruler"
It takes less discernment to observe the fact that there are "powerful rulers" in the world. In that sense, there are clearly gods, and atheism is the denial of these gods.
So while atheism by definition does not in fact deny The One True God as most atheists themselves seem to believe, it does deny the existence of lesser created gods. The fact that these "gods" are created does not make them any less existent than whoever is making the opinion that those gods do not exist.
Is atheism a logical stance? I would say that atheism can be logical, that is, coming from valid reasoning, so long as the atheism in question does not deny God with a capital G. To deny "God" with a capital "G" is to undermine the validity of any statement you make. If you do not believe in "God", that means that you do not believe in the existence of truth. If truth does not exist, none of the claims you make pertaining to the truth could be correct.
It is illogical to deny the existence of God, but it can be logical to deny the existence of gods.
That all said, logic is not what determines truth.
Theism is defined as "belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically :belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world"
Theism, specifically the belief in "God" with a capital "G", is the most logical stance you could have on anything. In fact, logic ceases to have any value without God.
You can build an entire tree of logic off of faulty premises, and all of the conclusions you come up with will be logical and reasonable. However, being built off of faulty premises, the entire tree of logic is flawed. To base an entire tree of logic off of the premise that God does not exist undermines the validity of the entire tree of logic. In fact, without God, logic is in itself illogical.
The evidence is clear when you understand what "God" means.
God is defined by merriam-webster as "The supreme and/or ultimate reality"
Supreme is defined by merriam-webster as "highest in rank or authority" or "highest in degree or quality"
Ultimate is defined by merriam-webster as "the best or most extreme of its kind" or "basic, fundamental" or "incapable of further analysis, division, or separation"
Reality is defined by merriam-webster as "The quality or state of being real"
~~~~
God is real by definition. Therefore, it is nonsensical to deny God. In fact, God isn't just defined as being real, but God is defined as being real in the truest sense of the word. So real in fact, that if you say "there is no God" you automatically invalidate any other claims of truth that you may make.
To hammer things home, lets go to the Oxford
Oxford defines God as the "supreme being"
Supreme is defined as "Highest in rank or authority".
Being is defined as "Existence".
It means the same thing in Oxford.
~~~
The existence of God is a given. It isn't something that should even be up for debate.
It is easy to see that our universe had a designer. I mean, take Constance for example. earth is the only know place to support human, animal, and plant life. Also, the earth is in the perfect position and it has the perfect amount of gasses. Oxygen, there is just enough of it to keep us breathing, but not igniting. Another thing, going back to how perfectly placed the earth is. If it were and closer or further from the sun, it could not sustain human life.