The truth about Atheism?

Simple

2) Admit the unknown 'is' a power we must accept.
Oh well, no help here. It is unknown, so what are we accepting? So I ask you to:
Admit the unknown 'is not' a power we must accept.
<HR>

I will admit you do not have to accept the power of the unknown. But, I can prove, mathematically, that an unknown power can have an infinite effect.

Case in point:

An unknown variable in mathematics can be isolated, but not solved. But, the function of the equation is still operable even without a defined solution.

a + b = c where the values of a and b are unknown, the value of c is unknown. If a is known and b is unknown, we can only solve
the equation to a - c = b. Here, if c is the Universe, and a is humanity, and I have arbitrarily suggested b is God, the equation solves Humanity - Universe = God.

Yes, you can put Elvis in C if you wish. The point is, the unknown has an infinite range of values, therefore power.
 
It's a silly argument. First "Humanity - Universe = God" is just a nonsense argument. For a second lets assume that it is somehow valid. The result is just as likely to be - infinity as + infinity. The effect could also be 0, or any other number. Hell, if you take the average of all the possibilities, you'll come to 0 anyhow. If any number was ever proven, it would be closer to 0 then infinity... because you are always inifinitly far away from infinity:)

So I have to ask you again:
Admit the possibility that God does not exists without 'proof' for the claim.

P.S - I love how you try and mix many different aspects of science to prove your point... but don't obey any of the the rules of science. What a rebel. Elvis would be proud.
 
Originally posted by Fluidity

What I actually am 'asking' you to do is: 1) Admit the possibility that God exists without 'proof' for the claim.
Click to expand...
It is, indeed, possible that and amd all logically possible Gods exist. It is likewise possible that any and all logically possible members of the Daoine Sidhe (the Faerie Kingdom). And, of course, it is possible that unicorn farts could damage the ozone layer. The world of fantasy and farse is replete with possible.
Originally posted by Fluidity

2) Admit the unknown 'is' a power we must accept.
Click to expand...
OK - as soon as you tell us (a) what this sentence presumes to mean, and (b) what it has to do with God(s).
Originally posted by Fluidity

3) Explain why atheists refuse to accept the above as rational thought.
Click to expand...
To which thought were you referring - the one that was "rational" but irrelevant, or the one that was meaningless and worthless?
 
Originally posted by Persol
P.S - I love how you try and mix many different aspects of science to prove your point... but don't obey any of the the rules of science. What a rebel. Elvis would be proud.
Click to expand...

You see now this brings up an interesting point. The human mind will provide context to justify its decision making and actions to itself. That's a big part of its job. This site is an interesting place to see this phenomenon manifest itself time and time again. It seems to me that people RARELY observe... they merely contextualize and justify.. never questioning their previously established context because well....

It's like this: there is the objective world and there is you. you can wrap the world around your perception or you can wrap your perception around the world. Most people fall for the prior, when they should strive for the latter... but honestly I don't think most people have the stones for the latter, because it's not pretty... it's not what they expect.. which is exactly why they cling to the prior... Should we start a thread and talk trash about this? Can you see what I'm getting at?
 
It's like this: there is the objective world and there is you. you can wrap the world around your perception or you can wrap your perception around the world. Most people fall for the prior, when they should strive for the latter... but honestly I don't think most people have the stones for the latter, because it's not pretty... it's not what they expect.. which is exactly why they cling to the prior... Should we start a thread and talk trash about this? Can you see what I'm getting at?
Click to expand...
I see what you mean...
Start the thread... it should be an interesting conversation until someone 'names names' and it turns into a flame war.
 
Re: Simple

Originally posted by Fluidity
Here, if c is the Universe, and a is humanity, and I have arbitrarily suggested b is God, the equation solves Humanity - Universe = God.
Click to expand...
And if 'c' is pixie dust and 'a' is Khepri's ass, then the dung beetle god without pixie dust on her ass is God. Amen.
 
And if 'c' is pixie dust and 'a' is Khepri's ass, then the dung beetle god without pixie dust on her ass is God. Amen.
Click to expand...
2 points for CA. Maybe one of us should try and argue on Fluidity's side... it would be more rational.

I'll be back in ~8 hours, and I'll try to do it if nobody else has.
 
Originally posted by Persol
2 points for CA. Maybe one of us should try and argue on Fluidity's side... it would be more rational.

I'll be back in ~8 hours, and I'll try to do it if nobody else has.
Click to expand...

That's a noble suggestion. I'm not sure I can do it though, I see the circular nature and mentally avoid it like the plague. I'll think about it and see if I can try. I love to be skewered by CA, so at least that is a little motivation. :)
 
Originally posted by wesmorris
It's like this: there is the objective world and there is you. you can wrap the world around your perception or you can wrap your perception around the world. Most people fall for the prior, when they should strive for the latter... but honestly I don't think most people have the stones for the latter, because it's not pretty... it's not what they expect.. which is exactly why they cling to the prior... Should we start a thread and talk trash about this? Can you see what I'm getting at?
Click to expand...

Wes (is it ok to call you Wes?)
How do you seperate self from perception? Or, rather how can perciever be sperated from perceived?
 
Originally posted by Turduckin
Wes (is it ok to call you Wes?)
How do you seperate self from perception? Or, rather how can perciever be sperated from perceived?
Click to expand...

Of course Wes is fine.

Interesting question.. I'll be happy to address it in the other thread.
 
wesmorris et al

I can admit there is the possibility that God does not exist.
However, I choose to believe there is a God.
This argument was about the evidence I see to suggest there is a God.

This argument was also about logic. Case in point: You can put anything in the simple equation I suggested for the power of the unknown. By placing pixie dust and somebody's ass in it, you proved my point. As I said, it has an infinite range.

As far as perspectives, if you suggest for a single moment that you are capable of complete objectivity, you are in deep denial about your own ability to percieve the Universe as it really is, much less argue unbiased about subjectivity, or the degree of subjectivity we humans suffer from.

I try desparately to see the Universe from multiple perspectives.
Like you, all of those perspectives are subjected to my limitiations as a human being.

Probably the only absurd point at which you and I would argue profusely, is whether or not there is a God, and the numeric probability that God exists.
 
I'll first use the same argument atheists use:

Since there is no evindence to the contrary that God exists, I chose to believe there is a God.

And mine:

As a human, I am incapable of interacting with the dimensions outside my existence where God most probably exists. For example: If God is in the dimension of time, several billion years in the future (or even microseconds), laying the groundwork for all we see in this dimension of time, I will be unable to detect God's presence.

Creation depends on God's existence before we were created, not after. This eliminates the possibility that God is in the past.

Being grateful for my existence and all the beauty I find in this Universe, I choose to believe there is a loving God.

Having no evidence to the contrary of God's existence, I come to the logical conclusion there is a probability God exists. Based on this observation, I find it more logical to believe than disbelieve.
 
Originally posted by Fluidity
I'll first use the same argument atheists use:

Since there is no evindence to the contrary that God exists, I chose to believe there is a God.

And mine:

As a human, I am incapable of interacting with the dimensions outside my existence where God most probably exists. For example: If God is in the dimension of time, several billion years in the future (or even microseconds), laying the groundwork for all we see in this dimension of time, I will be unable to detect God's presence.

Creation depends on God's existence before we were created, not after. This eliminates the possibility that God is in the past.

Being grateful for my existence and all the beauty I find in this Universe, I choose to believe there is a loving God.

Having no evidence to the contrary of God's existence, I come to the logical conclusion there is a probability God exists. Based on this observation, I find it more logical to believe than disbelieve.
Click to expand...

Does not your inability to percieve something render that something moot? Rather, you're trying to argue "since I can't percieve this, it must mean this." You are doing exactly what i said you are doing and you claimed you aren't. You're playing with the definition to justify your nonsense.

God is wholly possible. No one who is reasonable would debate that. You're trying to use the aithiest argument against the aitheist but it doesn't work because you're trying to put it in a theististic framework. You cannot validly draw a conclusion for "that which you cannot percieve". (okay, it might be possible, but you've not provided evidence that you've done so) You can wildly theorize all you like and that's fine, (but you should admit that's what you're doing) but you say "I choose to believe my "wild theory". What do you expect when you subject this "wild thoery" to analysis as if it were some sort of truth? Do you see the folly here?
 
Fluidity,

What I actually am 'asking' you to do is:

1) Admit the possibility that God exists without 'proof' for the claim.
2) Admit the unknown 'is' a power we must accept.
3) Explain why atheists refuse to accept the above as rational thought.
Click to expand...
Possibilities.

To claim a possibility one must have an indication that this claimed possibility could be realized. For example if I purchase a plot of empty land and hire some contractors and buy some building materials there would clearly exist the possibility that I could have a house built on that site. The house at present does not exist but I can conceive the possibility of the house based on the evidence that many other people have successfully built houses.

Now let's consider the possibility for the existence of a god. To claim such a possibility you must show some precedent or evidence that such an entity is possible preferably by showing past occurrences. Clearly the problem here is that no other gods have ever been shown to exist and neither is there any evidence to suggest that a supernatural realm could exist.

Do you see that without some evidence for such claims then not even the possibility of a god can be admitted?

Unknown Power.

The biggest problem with anything that is unknown, is, you've guessed it; it is unknown. To admit to something that is unknown is effectively to claim that this something is somehow known, but that is a direct contradiction of the definition of the thing being unknown.

To assign properties to something that is unknown is pure imaginative speculation. If something is unknown then there is nothing that can be said about it, not even its existence.

Rational Thinking.

Rational thought is based on logic. The primary components of logic are premises. Each premise represents a statement of truth. A truth is a proven fact based on evidence.

If evidence is not available then a valid premise cannot be generated. Without a valid premise there can be no logic. If logic is not possible then a rational conclusion cannot be achieved.

Hence the reason why atheists insist on evidence for claims in order to remain consistently rational.
 
wes,

God is wholly possible. No one who is reasonable would debate that.
Click to expand...
Is it? What is your evidence for such a possibility? What does it mean when you state that something is possible?
 
Wes,

More on possibilities.

If I have a box containing 10 coins I know it is possible to divide the coins into two groups of 6 and 4. However, what if I am given a closed box and am not told how many coins are present or if any coins are present. Can I now claim that it is possible to select two groups of 6 and 4?

We don't know if there is a possibility of such a selection or not.

As I said before if we are talking about the unknown then we can make no meaningful statements about what is possible or what is not possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top