Is Atheism rational? (yes again)

[Turambar]

Originally Posted by Dunhill

That makes absolutely no sense. It's like saying, this dude is black and sings well therefore hes Michael Jackson.

If the definition of Michael Jackson was "a black dude who sings well", then there would be plenty of Michael Jacksons. What I gave is the traditional definition of God. It also happens to be impossible for there to be two such entities that meet the definition. So if existence meets the definition of God and we know existence exists it has to be God.

[DaCougarMech]

Originally Posted by Turambar

I can go into more detail if you want, but the gist is God is defined as a being that is one, unchanging, eternal, infinite, omniscient, and omnipotent. Existience is one, unchanging, eternal, infinite, omniscient, and omnipotent. Therefore God and existence are one and the same.

while you can define your god as whatever you want, dont pull bull**** like redefining existence as that muck

omniscient and omnipotent indeed. i might as well say a table and a turtle are the same because both are made from remote controls

[Turambar]

Originally Posted by DaCougarMech

while you can define your god as whatever you want, dont pull bull**** like redefining existence as that muck

omniscient and omnipotent indeed. i might as well say a table and a turtle are the same because both are made from remote controls

existence is not defined as being omniscient and omnipotent, but its definition implies that it must be.

Existence itself is defined as pure actuality, with no potentiality (something that can exist has yet to actually exist, and is the privation of actuality). Potentially is thus the lack of being actual, not an existant thing in itself.

Now you also exist (you cannot deny this about yourself, even if you are skeptical about my existence and everything else around you). However you are not pure actuality, but both actual and potential. For example, you know there are some things that can be known but you don't know. You actually know some things and potentially know others. Pure actuality cannot have this privation, thus existence must know everything there is to know. Therefore existence is omniscient.

Similarly, you have the ability to do some things while there are other things that are logically possible that you can't do. Pure actuality must be able to do all things that are logically possible, therefore existence is omnipotent.

[chingchong34]

i dont know what to agree or disagree with but you religious cults need to shut the **** up.

could there be a higher being? maybe

is science logical and possibly truthful? probably yes.

who knows.


who cares?!?

the problem with religion is that there are no facts. only science even attempts to uncover the mysteries of why we are here. religion is nothing but fairy tale stories. i do respect my religious background however.

religion nowadays is outdated. there was a time long ago when this stuff mattered. nowadays why is there even a thought that this higher entity even exists?


if you believe in god then you should ought to believe in unicorns, dragons, and ghosts



real talk.
























jus sayin

[Dunhill]

Originally Posted by Turambar

existence is not defined as being omniscient and omnipotent, but its definition implies that it must be.

Existence itself is defined as pure actuality, with no potentiality (something that can exist has yet to actually exist, and is the privation of actuality). Potentially is thus the lack of being actual, not an existant thing in itself.

Now you also exist (you cannot deny this about yourself, even if you are skeptical about my existence and everything else around you). However you are not pure actuality, but both actual and potential. For example, you know there are some things that can be known but you don't know. You actually know some things and potentially know others. Pure actuality cannot have this privation, thus existence must know everything there is to know. Therefore existence is omniscient.

Similarly, you have the ability to do some things while there are other things that are logically possible that you can't do. Pure actuality must be able to do all things that are logically possible, therefore existence is omnipotent.

And how does this prove existence is God? You simply made an assumption without anything to back it up with.

[Boffman]

1. 2+2=4
2. You're ugly
3. Banana's?

[Rambo26]

Existence is an axiom

[Turambar]

Originally Posted by Dunhill

And how does this prove existence is God? You simply made an assumption without anything to back it up with.

I said existence met the definition of God. Do you disagree with the definition or are you just waiting for the rest of the parts to be proven?

[DaCougarMech]

Originally Posted by Turambar

existence is not defined as being omniscient and omnipotent, but its definition implies that it must be.

Existence itself is defined as pure actuality, with no potentiality (something that can exist has yet to actually exist, and is the privation of actuality). Potentially is thus the lack of being actual, not an existant thing in itself.

Now you also exist (you cannot deny this about yourself, even if you are skeptical about my existence and everything else around you). However you are not pure actuality, but both actual and potential. For example, you know there are some things that can be known but you don't know. You actually know some things and potentially know others. Pure actuality cannot have this privation, thus existence must know everything there is to know. Therefore existence is omniscient.

Similarly, you have the ability to do some things while there are other things that are logically possible that you can't do. Pure actuality must be able to do all things that are logically possible, therefore existence is omnipotent.

except existence is an abstract

[Gknight1]

Atheism doesn't make sense. The origins of life can't be found in science as no theory can be proven. Therefore all theories are metaphysical or non scientific. Nothing less than a belief system one wway or anither. The ? is what makes most sense? What is most rational and believable. GOD. That's why most believe in GOD and always will. Eventually everyone will. God bless if you seek Him.

[DaCougarMech]

Originally Posted by Gknight1

Atheism doesn't make sense. The origins of life can't be found in science as no theory can be proven

the reason that theories are not proven is because scientists are honest enough to leave the sliver of doubt in case a BETTER understanding of the universe can be found. understand, though, that theories are coalesced explanations of the natural universe concluded from observations of said universe

as far as it goes, though, i wouldnt be bothered if you didnt believe the theory of gravity

Originally Posted by Gknight1

Therefore all theories are metaphysical or non scientific

how so? considering the theory is a graduation of simple ideas through the process of the scientific method, you would be troubled to find anything more scientific

Originally Posted by Gknight1

What is most rational and believable. GOD. That's why most believe in GOD and always will. Eventually everyone will. God bless if you seek Him.

i read these words often from other theists on the board, and sometimes i really wish i could convey the sense of disappointment i get from reading such brash immaturity and smugness from people twice my age

[Mr Beer]

This is the same kind of absurd, contrived argument Malodrax uses, thankfully expressed in less words.

[DaCougarMech]

Originally Posted by Mr Beer

This is the same kind of absurd, contrived argument Malodrax uses, thankfully expressed in less words.

and less times

[_ATHEIST_]

Originally Posted by Gknight1

Atheism doesn't make sense. The origins of life can't be found in science as no theory can be proven. Therefore all theories are metaphysical or non scientific. Nothing less than a belief system one wway or anither. The ? is what makes most sense? What is most rational and believable. GOD.

Atheism , lets get this straight. It's not a belief system, it is observable evidence. It shouldn't be categorized as a belief system. You make it sound like it is.
Well as the origins of life, look to evolution for that answer. Or are you talking about the start of all existencE? there are alot of good theories why there is no god. Like why would a omnipotent,omniscience, all-powerful,all-knowing make the universe at the singularity a inanimate universe and turn animate. If he was perfect, you would think he would make it animate. But he threw a wrench in it to make this universe. I think a all intelligent designer would make it animate right off the bat. There's no other way of doing it.

That's why most believe in GOD and always will. Eventually everyone will. God bless if you seek Him.

ad populum at it's finest.ex. SO, most people like Coca-Cola so I should? right? By this line of reasoning. People believe in god, because they are scared of death. People don't want to die so they make up these fairy tales, just like the Egyptians did, to comfort people when they die and themselves. The brain does not want to die. So, we go on believing that person is alive. Wake up and smell reason, because you have it all backwards.

[Turambar]

Originally Posted by DaCougarMech

except existence is an abstract

It's as much an abstract as God, however.

Or is the issue with comparing people's attributes like knowledge and action to existence? As totally actualised existence, it must include all possible action (and all possible knowledge, for that matter)-- else it would be to say they don't actually exist.

[Morbid_Kind]

cut the crap
atheists are wrong and stop focusing on stupid ****
the antichrist is real and he is the president
so that automatically proves you wrong
focus on different things please

[psych]

Originally Posted by Morbid_Kind

cut the crap
atheists are wrong and stop focusing on stupid ****
the antichrist is real and he is the president
so that automatically proves you wrong
focus on different things please

bush is the antichrist?

[Dunhill]

I think some people just prefer to live in denial, and believe in God. The unexplainable can be just blamed on God.

Brother died - God had a new mission for him
Car wont start - God did it so I wont get into an accident
Pain and suffering - Because Adam and Eve sinned
Hemorrhoids - God created them for ****s and giggles

and so on

[DaCougarMech]

Originally Posted by Turambar

It's as much an abstract as God, however.

Or is the issue with comparing people's attributes like knowledge and action to existence? As totally actualised existence, it must include all possible action (and all possible knowledge, for that matter)-- else it would be to say they don't actually exist.

i disagree. a conscious reality manipulating being is not an abstract

[someguy12]

Originally Posted by _ATHEIST_

Atheism , lets get this straight. It's not a belief system, it is observable evidence. It shouldn't be categorized as a belief system. You make it sound like it is.
Well as the origins of life, look to evolution for that answer. Or are you talking about the start of all existencE? there are alot of good theories why there is no god. Like why would a omnipotent,omniscience, all-powerful,all-knowing make the universe at the singularity a inanimate universe and turn animate. If he was perfect, you would think he would make it animate. But he threw a wrench in it to make this universe. I think a all intelligent designer would make it animate right off the bat. There's no other way of doing it.



ad populum at it's finest.ex. SO, most people like Coca-Cola so I should? right? By this line of reasoning. People believe in god, because they are scared of death. People don't want to die so they make up these fairy tales, just like the Egyptians did, to comfort people when they die and themselves. The brain does not want to die. So, we go on believing that person is alive. Wake up and smell reason, because you have it all backwards.

I believe that you are the one who has it backwards.
Everyone has a belief system and each person's "god" is who or whatever that person decides controls his/her life. In athiesm, you believe that you are your own god.

Evolution contradicts itself many times over so that is barely proof for origins of all existence. If all life came from one thing, how are there 2 genders? When one specialised gender randomly sprung up...you mean to tell me that the opposite gender randomly sprung up at the exact same time? Scientifically...the probablility of that is so low that it's classified as mathematically impossible throughout history. If that didn't happen then the first specie with a specialised gender would have died out. Also, imagine taking a few billion random letters and randomly combining them and making a coherent book...more than 100,000 times. That's how likely evolution is. Nuff said. As a scientist, it makes more sense to believe in God who designed and created all things intelligently.

How would the universe at a singularity being animate change anything? So what if there's no life in subatomic particles? Just because you would do it doesn't mean God should do it. He made a perfectly workable world with the singularity being inanimate, I fail to see how making it animate could be any better. Please explain.

[psych]

Originally Posted by someguy12

I believe that you are the one who has it backwards.
Everyone has a belief system and each person's "god" is who or whatever that person decides controls his/her life. In athiesm, you believe that you are your own god.

Evolution contradicts itself many times over so that is barely proof for origins of all existence. If all life came from one thing, how are there 2 genders? When one specialised gender randomly sprung up...you mean to tell me that the opposite gender randomly sprung up at the exact same time? Scientifically...the probablility of that is so low that it's classified as mathematically impossible throughout history. If that didn't happen then the first specie with a specialised gender would have died out. Also, imagine taking a few billion random letters and randomly combining them and making a coherent book...more than 100,000 times. That's how likely evolution is. Nuff said. As a scientist, it makes more sense to believe in God who designed and created all things intelligently.

How would the universe at a singularity being animate change anything? So what if there's no life in subatomic particles? Just because you would do it doesn't mean God should do it. He made a perfectly workable world with the singularity being inanimate, I fail to see how making it animate could be any better. Please explain.

you fail to see many things because its easier for you to avoid using your brain and its easier to attribute things to one all powerful being that knows and controls everything according to his whim
also, you dont seem to know how evolution really works

[someguy12]

And I see it's alot easier for you to make random claims and not back them up. Please tell me what I'm failing to see and how evolution works.
Otherwise I'd have to assume you don't know how evolution is proposed to work.
Evolution says this:
There is a pool of genetic material. Little by little external circumstances change information stored by the genes. First amoeba were formed and other single celled organisms. The more complex life forms such as fungi etc. Eventually plants then animals. Right?

[DaCougarMech]

Originally Posted by someguy12

Eventually plants then animals. Right?

uhhh

[someguy12]

Originally Posted by psych

you fail to see many things because its easier for you to avoid using your brain and its easier to attribute things to one all powerful being that knows and controls everything according to his whim
also, you dont seem to know how evolution really works

I am simply making my statistical claim from this is a base. If one chromosome has more information than 12 volumes of encyclopedia and we humans have 46 total. Assuming that evolution randomly occured like is proposed, how likely is it that from a pool of random genetic information, so many organisms can be formed and changed over and over again? Not very likely at all I'd have to say.

[psych]

Originally Posted by someguy12

Evolution says this:
There is a pool of genetic material. Little by little external circumstances change information stored by the genes. First amoeba were formed and other single celled organisms. The more complex life forms such as fungi etc. Eventually plants then animals. Right?

abiogenesis =/= evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

[B_Master_Flash]

Originally Posted by outlikeatrout

1. Atheism is a lack of belief in God.
2. Therefore, for an atheist, there is nothing left but science to explain existence.
3. Existence cannot be explained by science because by definition science is bound within that existence.
4. We do exist.
5. Therefore, atheism is a belief system, or lack thereof, in which it is impossible to explain something that does exist.

Thoughts on #3?

(in before blue gargoyle)

Your logic is wrong. Atheism is a lack in belief of a theistic god, that does not imply that an atheist can ONLY believe in science. You've created a false dilemma.

[someguy12]

I know what abiogenesis is thank you.
This is at the core of evolution and you can't have one without the other.
If there was no abiogenesis, then there would be no common anscenstor from which to evolve. If there was no evolution then we'd all still be in the primordial soup.
If i disprove one, then both can't hold. That is what I'm doing.

[The Kurgan]

Originally Posted by outlikeatrout

1. Atheism is a lack of belief in God.
2. Therefore, for an atheist, there is nothing left but science to explain existence.
3. Existence cannot be explained by science because by definition science is bound within that existence.
4. We do exist.
5. Therefore, atheism is a belief system, or lack thereof, in which it is impossible to explain something that does exist.

1 and 4 is correct.

2 is a non-sequitur and has no place in a general discussion of atheism.

3 is a totally unfounded claim and is perfectly false: science is the rational empirical inquiry into existence.

5 does not follow.

I recommend some classes in basic logic before you attempt this stuff. It's not as easy as you seem to think it is.

[Mr Beer]

Originally Posted by someguy12

I know what abiogenesis is thank you.
This is at the core of evolution and you can't have one without the other.
If there was no abiogenesis, then there would be no common anscenstor from which to evolve. If there was no evolution then we'd all still be in the primordial soup.
If i disprove one, then both can't hold. That is what I'm doing.

In the same way, if the Big Bang didn't happen, gravity doesn't exist!

[Mr Beer]

If the Earth didn't coalesce from planetoids, continental drift doesn't exist!