Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief (1 Viewer)

[MadeFromDust]

That's why God gave us his Word, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, though. Viola! All the math (that we'll/we'd ever need) has already been done for us.

Plus, the assumption that God is more "complex" than the universe is just that, an assumption. God is a Spirit, a non-material, non-physical being.

 

[magnifier661]

I agree that is possible, sure. But I think, overall, we are batting pretty damn well in the game of finding mechanisms to accurately describe the natural world. You are welcome as always to put your money on us failing to fully explain the first organism -- I just don't think that's the smart bet.

It is a well-established fallacy to assume that something unexplained today will be unexplained forever (look at the last 400 years!), so how can you hold the unknowns of today as conclusive proof for anything? Way back in the day you could have made the exact same argument you are making now, except using the motion if the planets rather than the formation if life. "How can you explain their predictable patterns, except for God moving them around in circles with his cosmic hand?" ancient Mags asked ancient Trip. "I don't know man, I just think there is a simple answer for this behavior that we will understand someday." Who would have won that bet?

Yes you have a point; but the unimaginable actually argues against natural process. It seems the more "educated" we are; by obtaining evidence isn't swaying away from "God's existence"; but bringing us closer to understanding "God's existence". The amazing thing about "science" is it's ability to "evolve". An honest scientist cannot discount the probability that God exists.

And ancient Mags and Tango (today) may have ancient Mags win 400 years from now. Ancient Mags and Tango 400 years ago; would have Ancient Tango win (today).

 

[MARIS61]

As far as I can tell, only MARIS has claimed to have proof that God does not exist. You two will have to take that up in a private room sometime -- it's not an argument any of the rest of us care to indulge ourselves in.

That is incorrect. A negative cannot be proven, but it can easily be known.

I said I KNOW GOD(S) DO NOT EXIST.

Yet another example: You go outside on a bright sunny day, not a cloud in the sk...PROVE IT'S NOT RAINING.

You can't prove it. It's a negative

But if you have any perception and the ability to reason, YOU KNOW IT'S NOT RAINING.

 

[magnifier661]

We don't know that, and you did your math on an age of 13.7 billion years, not 17.3 billion years.

Both are widely accepted by separate scientific groups, showing how ridiculous it is to use either for a mathematical equation.

It could be 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years or one day. It's not relevant, as time is but a manmade concept.

You still have to prove god exists, which means you would have to prove who/what created him.

You think god created the universe. Right so far?

That would mean god is more intelligent and more complex than the universe. Right so far?

You think he has always existed. Right so far?

Ergo, it follows that if it's possible that god always existed, something simpler and less intelligent could have always existed.

Throw in the certainty that our universe does exist and the absolute dearth of evidence that god exists, and you recognize the futility of your premise.

I'll give you 100 billion years MARIS and it's still improbable.

and P.S. this is giving evidence that the universe is more probable to be created by a "creator"

 

[magnifier661]

That is incorrect. A negative cannot be proven, but it can easily be known.

I said I KNOW GOD(S) DO NOT EXIST.

Yet another example: You go outside on a bright sunny day, not a cloud in the sk...PROVE IT'S NOT RAINING.

You can't prove it. It's a negative

But if you have any perception and the ability to reason, YOU KNOW IT'S NOT RAINING.

You have no idea that what you just said was one of the most illogical posts so far.

 

[magnifier661]

That's why God gave us his Word, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, though. Viola! All the math (that we'll/we'd ever need) has already been done for us.

Remember that this thread is about "intelligent design"; not Jesus and our "Hebrew God".

 

[MARIS61]

Plus, the assumption that God is more "complex" than the universe is just that, an assumption. God is a Spirit, a non-material, non-physical being.

You're saying god is nothing greater than a pep rally?

I can accept that answer simply on "faith".

 

[MARIS61]

I'll give you 100 billion years MARIS and it's still improbable.0

You could give it infinity.

It would still be irrelevant to your thread title in any way, shape or form.

 

[MadeFromDust]

You're saying god is nothing greater than a pep rally?

I can accept that answer simply on "faith".

You're a hypocrite MARIS, you have failed to answer any of my questions yet I'm the one who bases his beliefs on "faith". If the source of something has to be more complex than the cause we would never be able to answer or explain anything.

 

[MARIS61]

You're a hypocrite MARIS, you have failed to answer any of my questions yet I'm the one who bases his beliefs on "faith". If the source of something has to be more complex than the cause we would never be able to answer or explain anything.

You're the one claiming god is intelligent. I know him to be a fictional mind-control device.

 

[magnifier661]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Atheism

So on the defense, according to this: Webster Dictionary reference to the term "Atheism"

a·the·ism   [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin:
1580–90; < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ism

Would it be clear that this definition of "Atheism" is not a sound belief?

 

[MadeFromDust]

You're the one claiming god is intelligent. I know him to be a fictional mind-control device.

Once again a blind, baseless assertion. You just continue to bury yourself in a deeper hole of nonsense. Say something intelligent please.

 

[magnifier661]

You could give it infinity.

It would still be irrelevant to your thread title in any way, shape or form.

Well at least in your "world" MARIS. But most of us live in another one. A world that actually uses logic and reasoning.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

All the math (that we'll/we'd ever need) has already been done for us.

If that's the case I'm having God do my taxes.

And I expect a large refund!

 

[magnifier661]

If that's the case I'm having God do my taxes.

And I expect a large refund!

ZING!!!!!

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Well at least in your "world" MARIS. But most of us live in another one. A world that actually uses logic and reasoning.

You know nothing about logic. Give up.

 

[magnifier661]

You know nothing about logic. Give up.

Well that's your opinion. I can accept that.

 

[TripTango]

Yes you have a point; but the unimaginable actually argues against natural process. It seems the more "educated" we are; by obtaining evidence isn't swaying away from "God's existence"; but bringing us closer to understanding "God's existence". The amazing thing about "science" is it's ability to "evolve". An honest scientist cannot discount the probability that God exists.

And ancient Mags and Tango (today) may have ancient Mags win 400 years from now. Ancient Mags and Tango 400 years ago; would have Ancient Tango win (today).

Do you want a list of all the other ancient mystery bets that Ancient Trip would have won? It's pretty dang long...

 

[magnifier661]

Do you want a list of all the other ancient mystery bets that Ancient Trip would have won? It's pretty dang long...

Before modern science; I bet there are quite a few. But I can bring up some bets some of the "creationists" back in the day said and would have made a killing today.

 

[TripTango]

Before modern science; I bet there are quite a few. But I can bring up some bets some of the "creationists" back in the day said and would have made a killing today.

Nope -- unfortunately you won't be able to collect until the end of the world, since we still have time to explain them.

But then, that's when you expect to collect your reward anyway, so it's all good!

 

[magnifier661]

Nope -- unfortunately you won't be able to collect until the end of the world, since we still have time to explain them.

But then, that's when you expect to collect your reward anyway, so it's all good!

Nice one! LOL yeah money wouldn't be a need in the afterlife.

Hey you mind answering post #731?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Has anyone listened to this yet?

I swear it's good.

http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/77205

 

[TripTango]

Nice one! LOL yeah money wouldn't be a need in the afterlife.

Hey you mind answering post #731?

I don't think either of those definitions imply that all atheists claim to have proof of God's nonexistence, so I don't agree with your conclusion about them.

 

[magnifier661]

I don't think either of those definitions imply that all atheists claim to have proof of God's nonexistence, so I don't agree with your conclusion about them.

But according to that definition? Even if you believe it's not what Atheism is.

 

[TripTango]

But according to that definition? Even if you believe it's not what Atheism is.

Right -- I'm going straight by those definitions here. "Belief" doesn't necessarily imply absolute proof -- in fact there is very little we can prove absolutely.

If your question is "is the claim to have absolute proof for God's nonexistence reasonable", then I would agree with you that it is not.

 

[magnifier661]

Right -- I'm going straight by those definitions here. "Belief" doesn't necessarily imply absolute proof -- in fact there is very little we can prove absolutely.

If your question is "is the claim to have absolute proof for God's nonexistence reasonable", then I would agree with you that it is not.

That's an honest answer. And it doesn't discredit your "belief". Good answer! rep'd

 

[magnifier661]

A couple quotes to chew on:

I had rather believe all the fables in the Legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran, than that this universal frame is without a Mind; and, therefore, God never wrought miracle to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it. --- Francis Bacon

A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion. --- Francis Bacon

and if there some that do not know who he is; well he was the author and pioneered the scientific method.

 

[RR7]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Atheism

So on the defense, according to this: Webster Dictionary reference to the term "Atheism"



Would it be clear that this definition of "Atheism" is not a sound belief?

no. that definition says belief there is no god. nothing about that is unsound.

 

[magnifier661]

no. that definition says belief there is no god. nothing about that is unsound.

So then the belief in God is sound as well?

 

[TripTango]

A couple quotes to chew on:

and if there some that do not know who he is; well he was the author and pioneered the scientific method.

I prefer this one:

"Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation; all which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, though religion were not; but superstition dismounts all these, and erecteth an absolute monarchy in the minds of men. Therefore atheism did never perturb states; for it makes men wary of themselves, as looking no further: and we see the times inclined to atheism (as the time of Augustus Cæsar) were civil times. But superstition hath been the confusion of many states, and bringeth in a new primum mobile, that ravisheth all the spheres of government."