To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns.

Status
Not open for further replies.
madethesame said:
it will take long time to become familiar with me.
Click to expand...
On your current performance I'm not sure it's worth the effort.
You tend to be incoherent, apparently incapable of making a point and can't answer questions in any manner that seems rational.

nothing exists, it is fact.
Click to expand...
That happens to NOT be a fact.

your concerns are your belifes.
Click to expand...
And another non sequitur...
 
Dywyddyr said:
On your current performance I'm not sure it's worth the effort.
You tend to be incoherent, apparently incapable of making a point and can't answer questions in any manner that seems rational.


That happens to NOT be a fact.


And another non sequitur...
Click to expand...
you know i am wrong as fact.
but still respond to me, cause you are concerned, your belief pushes you.
 
davewhite04 said:
The old cliche is appropriate here... Love is illogical so does that mean it doesn't exist?
Click to expand...
Who says love is illogical? How is it illogical? What is the logic that it should follow, such that what it does is actually illogical?
And before you can say it exists, do you even know what love is... in terms of what it is that actually exists?
Of course not. So this proves that something illogical can exist. Considering the fact that many religions refer to God as Love then that sort of wraps up the argument that God can and probably does exist.
Click to expand...
Nonsense.
Whether something is illogical or not depends on the propositions one starts with.
When it comes to something that actually exists, if we deem the existence to be illogical then it must be our propositions that are in error (assuming that the logic from those to the conclusion of "it can not exist" is valid).
So if you deem love to exist and its existence to defy illogical, it is your propositions, your understanding of love that is in error and needs correcting.
Sorry for butting in.
Click to expand...
Don't apologise for butting in, just for what you butt in with! ;)
 
madethesame said:
you know i am wrong as fact.
but still respond to me, cause you are concerned, your belief pushes you.
Click to expand...

it is nice to have some beliefs, it is nice to have no beliefs,
life is the combination of both
to be at one extreme is unhealthy, life cannot be fully experienced at one
theismism, atheism are all same
 
Many atheists (including me) would define atheism as "insufficient evidence for a belief in God". That's not to say that we "know" there is no God but that the lack of belief is based on insufficient evidence.

It's the same standard that is applied to Bigfoot.

Regarding what is and is not in the material world...at this point everything that we know is in the material world including thoughts, emotions, electro-magnetic waves.

There is no evidence for anything other than a material world.

As I pointed out previously, "God did it" is not the best explanation for anything just using the same methods that you would use to find the best explanation for any other subject (evidence, fits the laws of nature, simplest explanation that gets the job done).

The idea that (your) God is the best explanation makes no sense if for no other reason than you don't believe in all of the other Gods for the same reasons that I don't believe in all of the other Gods.

The fact that there are many other Gods strongly suggests that Gods are man-made concepts in the first place.
 
Pachomius said:

​
Now, to make the matter brief, in reasoning on facts and logic, I consider the ultimate explanation of the existence of the universe, which according to the vast majority of scientists who pursue science without any involvement with the concept and existence of God, they tell us that the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years back in time.
Click to expand...

So do I, so what? You only agree with scientists up to this point. Science doesn't address what came before the Big Bang because it's not currently known.

Now you want to switch to formal logic but formal logic can't address truth where facts haven't been established. All it can do is show internal logic of a set of statements. If the statements aren't factually correct then you are accomplishing nothing.

Without knowing what came before the Big Bang you can't derive that with formal logic (which is your whole game).
 
madethesame said:
the love

the love we ordinary human experience is of the heart level. therefore pseudo scientist call it disease foolishly.


this absence of the belief is also a belief.
all know about human body being made of energy and matter, but why we witness each other does 'science' give its answer. is thier any proof of witnessing in physics ?
i dont know whether it is their or not but the day it is found our search for proof will stop.
Click to expand...
Yazata said:
If that was the case, then so-called 'atheists' would stop being atheists as soon as they acquired any beliefs.

I'm more inclined to define 'atheism' as the belief that 'God' doesn't exist. That's how most professional philosophers and scholars of religious studies use the term and it better describes those who identify themselves as 'atheists'.

Atheists often have a whole host of beliefs in addition to that basic defining belief. They often (but not universally) insist that there's no good evidence for the existence of God, or that 'religion' (which many atheists equate with belief in God) is a dark and atavistic force in human history. Some atheists seem to believe that atheists are more intelligent than 'religionists'. My own view is that some of these atheist beliefs are defensible and well-founded, while others aren't.



That's an atheist belief that I'd classify as foolishness.

Suppose that somebody makes the claim that 'atoms don't exist'. Presumably that assertion still needs quite a bit of evidence and argument before it becomes plausible. People have no obligation to believe every statement that has a logical negation operator tucked into it somewhere.
Click to expand...
 
Pachomius:

Pachomius said:
Everything with a beginning has a cause, that is truth by examination, if you don't accept that, then present an example in reality outside mental constructs of something having begun to exist that is not caused by something else.
Click to expand...
As I have already pointed out, the universe as a whole may well be a special case. Physically, we have established causation in terms of matter and energy in the universe. Outside the universe notions such as time become hazy and so the concept of causation is problematic (unless, as Yazata suggests, we take the idea of a "cause" being the existence of some kind of explanation rather than as something that precedes the effect in time).

On the other hand, you have already been given the example of virtual particles, which pop in and out of existence for no apparent reason (other than the inherent uncertainty in certain quantum fields). What do you suppose the cause of virtual particles is?

Did you have any comments on the rest of my argument, or just step 1?
 
Jan Ardena:

Jan Ardena said:
It has to be supernatural, by default.
Click to expand...
I don't see why. If the multiverse exists, then there's no reason it can't be entirely natural, as far as I can see. So if the multiverse explains our universe, then we have a natural explanation there, not a supernatural one.

It is useful to bear in mind what Yazata said, though. Are we talking about our universe of matter and energy, or are we talking about everything that exists (including, potentially, the multiverse)?

If we're talking about everything, then we need to include God in the everything. The argument presented then demands that God has a cause/explanation.

If we accept that the universe had a beginning and was therefore caused. We can assume that the effects has characteristics of the cause. Hence we can learn something about the transcendental agency.
Click to expand...
We can we assume that effects inherit anything from causes? That strikes me as an Aristotlean way of thinking. For example, if I throw a ball, then after it leaves my hand that ball has no "memory" that it was projected by my hand, rather than, say, a tennis racquet or a cannon. All we can know about it is that it has a certain speed and direction of travel (etc.). Nothing about the ball in flight contains information about the agency (in this case, me) who caused that flight in the first place.

No. God is simply the best choice at that point.
Click to expand...
I disagree. You're jumping away from natural explanations for no compelling reason.

But tell me something, how do you hope to find evidence of what came before the material manifestation, when by default that cause has to be transcendental?
Click to expand...
I don't agree with your default assumption, since the multiverse (if it exists) would be natural, not supernatural. So, for that matter, would the spontaneous generation of our universe as a result of some kind of quantum fluctuation.

That's my own personal thing and has nothing to do with anything. We are concerned with the first cause argument in which the logical conclusion is transcendent, all knowing (with regards its effect), and must have some of its characteristics. This is still what we comprehend to be God without what you describe as ''extra baggage).
Click to expand...
If you're talking ultimate first cause - i.e. first cause of all that exists, multiverses included - then an eternal God seems to be no better an explanation than an eternal multiverse (or an eternal nothingness that occasionally fluctuates, perhaps). I don't see why a supernatural cause is needed, if indeed a cause is needed. And I don't see why a God who created the universe would have to be all knowing in any sense. Admittedly, I don't know what "with regards its effect" means. And I have addressed the issue of necessary characteristics, I think.
 
If you take the whole out of the whole, the whole remains behind. Nothing is taken out, because you cannot take anything from the whole. Even if you take the whole, the whole remains behind. And you cannot add anything to the whole. If you add something to the whole, it will remain the same ~ Upanishads
 
madethesame said:
this concept is god.
Click to expand...
Is it? It reads more like a kind of vague definition of infinity to me. Look:

$$\infty - \infty = \infty$$. If you take the whole out of the whole, the whole remains behind.
$$\infty - x = \infty$$. Nothing is taken out, because you cannot take anything from the whole.
$$\infty - \infty = \infty$$. Even if you take the whole, the whole remains behind.
$$\infty + x = \infty$$. And you cannot add anything to the whole. If you add something to the whole, it will remain the same.
 
yes this is already written in vedas, thousands of years ago.
they have realized, that gods definition can not be found.
Also, we cannot define ourselves,
if we could define ourselves we will become limited, hence no evolution, no propagation. then their would be no purpose.
 
Pachomius said:
Okay, addressing all atheists, tell me, Do you maintain that the universe came forth from nothing?
Click to expand...
All that atheists maintain is that there appears to be no need for a God to create the universe, and there's no evidence that God did create the universe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top