Why Atheism is Not Logical or Rational (no bible thumping)
Options
Stiff
Members Posts: 7,723 ✭✭✭✭✭
Say you were wandering through the desert. Walking and walking. You see the standard desert things as far as the eyes can: rocks, sand etc. And then out of nowhere you stumble upon a a table, fully set with chairs, plates, and silverware. You look around and there's nobody around at all. No traces of civilization anywhere in your vicinity. No footprints, nothing. And it looked like it had put there relatively recently.
It would be irrational to deduce that the tableset simply must have created and set itself. The salad fork placed itself in the correct spot next to the... (wherever the salad fork goes). It would be illogical to reach the conclusion that the entire table set was generated just randomly and coincidentally naturally. Even though you didn't see it, most reasonable people would reach the conclusion that at some point this table, these chairs, and this silverware was created by someone. And SOMEBODY set this table out in the desert, as odd as it seems. Who knows why, but they did it.
And yet we have a wide spread belief that an entire Universe can be put into existence randomly. We look at the immutable laws of science and reach the conclusion that they must have wrote themselves. We look at the world and see how an ecosystem was set to perpetuate life through a "barter system": the plants need carbon dioxide and create oxygen. Animals and humans need Oxygen and create carbon dioxide.
I consider myself Christian, but if you look at Christian beliefs and be like "ehhh nah" then that's understandable. But to sit up and denounce all form of spirituality and deny that the universe has a creator just comes off as pretty unreasonable. A table can't set itself, but a universe can? Nah that's not adding up.
It would be irrational to deduce that the tableset simply must have created and set itself. The salad fork placed itself in the correct spot next to the... (wherever the salad fork goes). It would be illogical to reach the conclusion that the entire table set was generated just randomly and coincidentally naturally. Even though you didn't see it, most reasonable people would reach the conclusion that at some point this table, these chairs, and this silverware was created by someone. And SOMEBODY set this table out in the desert, as odd as it seems. Who knows why, but they did it.
And yet we have a wide spread belief that an entire Universe can be put into existence randomly. We look at the immutable laws of science and reach the conclusion that they must have wrote themselves. We look at the world and see how an ecosystem was set to perpetuate life through a "barter system": the plants need carbon dioxide and create oxygen. Animals and humans need Oxygen and create carbon dioxide.
I consider myself Christian, but if you look at Christian beliefs and be like "ehhh nah" then that's understandable. But to sit up and denounce all form of spirituality and deny that the universe has a creator just comes off as pretty unreasonable. A table can't set itself, but a universe can? Nah that's not adding up.
Comments
-
Alot of these people just hate christanity and that's all it really is
-
Earth ain't a table bruh. We have prior knowledge to tell us that people build tables. If you had never heard of manmade furniture before it would be foolish to assume such just because you saw it.
-
Interesting points
-
Rubato Garcia wrote: »Earth ain't a table bruh. We have prior knowledge to tell us that people build tables. If you had never heard of manmade furniture before it would be foolish to assume such just because you saw it.
But that's the thing though, Earth and its systems are way more intricate than a table. If you'd never heard of manmade furniture you would probably realize anyway that what you were seeing wasn't part of nature, because of how they appeared so out of place from your average rocks, and sticks. What you would be seeing is something that was obviously crafted and designed.
For instance say somebody in the 60's stumbled across a laptop from today. They wouldn't be able to identify what they were seeing, but they would know that it wasn't some naturally occurring object. -
So you're saying earth is obviously not naturally occurring? Based on appearance? Cause IMO the earth looks a hell of a lot more natural than the manmade objects in your examples.
-
Rubato Garcia wrote: »So you're saying earth is obviously not naturally occurring? Based on appearance? Cause IMO the earth looks a hell of a lot more natural than the manmade objects in your examples.
In a way, yes.Earth and its lifeforms. DNA is more intricately designed than computer-coding. It's inconceivable to me that it just "happened" like that. -
I think you're oversimplifying the atheist argument. It's not that earth "just happened," it's that it happened as a result of biological processes rather than the intelligent design of some mystical being.
-
It really isn't but atheism requires as much logical thinking as theism does. Its not like people are born in atheist houses much, but are brought up as Christians or theists. So they usually come to it on their own. Some get into oother spiritual paths due to their thinking and debating amongst themselves.
-
Rubato Garcia wrote: »So you're saying earth is obviously not naturally occurring? Based on appearance? Cause IMO the earth looks a hell of a lot more natural than the manmade objects in your examples.
In a way, yes.Earth and its lifeforms. DNA is more intricately designed than computer-coding. It's inconceivable to me that it just "happened" like that.
Just because something is inconceivable doesn't mean something created it. Using your logic above, It creates a never ending cycle of what created what IE: who made the person that made the table, then who made the person that made the person that made the table. -
Rubato Garcia wrote: »I think you're oversimplifying the atheist argument. It's not that earth "just happened," it's that it happened as a result of biological processes rather than the intelligent design of some mystical being.
Well not necessarily the Earth "just happening" but the entire Big Bang Theory is basically saying that the Universe "just happened", just in scientific jargon
-
King_sorrow wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »So you're saying earth is obviously not naturally occurring? Based on appearance? Cause IMO the earth looks a hell of a lot more natural than the manmade objects in your examples.
In a way, yes.Earth and its lifeforms. DNA is more intricately designed than computer-coding. It's inconceivable to me that it just "happened" like that.
Just because something is inconceivable doesn't mean something created it. Using your logic above, It creates a never ending cycle of what created what IE: who made the person that made the table, then who made the person that made the person that made the table.
Well if you believe in some supreme being that kind of clears it up. A supreme being that always was so didn't have to be created. Life on earth didn't always exist and according to science neither did the universe, so there's no way to explain it coming from nothingness, by itself.
-
Oya_Husband wrote: »It really isn't but atheism requires as much logical thinking as theism does. Its not like people are born in atheist houses much, but are brought up as Christians or theists. So they usually come to it on their own. Some get into oother spiritual paths due to their thinking and debating amongst themselves.
Yeah I'm by no means saying that any religion is logical. I'm just countering this stance that I encounter from Atheists sometimes (on the internet) that they have some kind of reasoned high ground to stand on. -
King_sorrow wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »So you're saying earth is obviously not naturally occurring? Based on appearance? Cause IMO the earth looks a hell of a lot more natural than the manmade objects in your examples.
In a way, yes.Earth and its lifeforms. DNA is more intricately designed than computer-coding. It's inconceivable to me that it just "happened" like that.
Just because something is inconceivable doesn't mean something created it. Using your logic above, It creates a never ending cycle of what created what IE: who made the person that made the table, then who made the person that made the person that made the table.
Well if you believe in some supreme being that kind of clears it up. A supreme being that always was so didn't have to be created. Life on earth didn't always exist and according to science neither did the universe, so there's no way to explain it coming from nothingness, by itself.
Other than "because that's what I was taught," explain to me how you know that supreme beings exist, and how they don't have to be created because they have always existed. -
Rubato Garcia wrote: »King_sorrow wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »So you're saying earth is obviously not naturally occurring? Based on appearance? Cause IMO the earth looks a hell of a lot more natural than the manmade objects in your examples.
In a way, yes.Earth and its lifeforms. DNA is more intricately designed than computer-coding. It's inconceivable to me that it just "happened" like that.
Just because something is inconceivable doesn't mean something created it. Using your logic above, It creates a never ending cycle of what created what IE: who made the person that made the table, then who made the person that made the person that made the table.
Well if you believe in some supreme being that kind of clears it up. A supreme being that always was so didn't have to be created. Life on earth didn't always exist and according to science neither did the universe, so there's no way to explain it coming from nothingness, by itself.
Other than "because that's what I was taught," explain to me how you know that supreme beings exist, and how they don't have to be created because they have always existed.
I know nothing of the sort. beliefs =/= knowledge . However, the existence of a supreme being (or beings) would explain the origin of the universe more adequately than any currently regarded scientific theory. -
So we just need a better theory. I'd buy that, maybe the Big Bang isn't the answer either but that doesn't validate Creationism. One explanation being more "adequate" than the other doesn't mean they aren't both wrong.
-
If you really believe in Jesus you know its not about anything in this life, so none of these question even matter
-
Rubato Garcia wrote: »So we just need a better theory. I'd buy that, maybe the Big Bang isn't the answer either but that doesn't validate Creationism. One explanation being more "adequate" than the other doesn't mean they aren't both wrong.
Well in this case one of them HAS to be right. Either the universe created itself or something created the universe. Most astronomers agree that the universe hasn't existed forever because of the way its expanding. -
I can't say for certain that no higher power exists and by higher power I don't necessarily mean the deities describe in the various religions we know.
And as far as trying to understand unexplained natural phenomena, there's no reason scientists should stop looking for those answers; the discoveries made from their work can help us, or destroy us, either way. -
Kinda way off the topic, but this was my first thought when read your opening post..
I wonder what the people on the planet thought PRIOR to any religious doctrine coming about, thought, when they saw a fellow human die for the first time. Then come to realize they're not waking up, decaying, etc.. because now we have the books that give us some comfort in believing it is all part of a plan and that more is to come. -
That's a false equivalence.
The desert and the table.
1. We are Human.
2. We know for a fact humans make tables and chairs.
3. We know for a fact Humans set table and chairs.
How do we know this? Because we are human and have observed other humans doing so, or have even done so ourselves. So it's pretty logical to assume someone set it up.
The Universe and Earth.
1. We are Human.
2. We don't know for a fact that there is some being out there capable of creating Universes.
3. If said being exist, we don't know for a fact if he is some omnipotent observer.
We are human, and have not observed or witnessed a being capable of doing this. So imo it is not as logical as the table incident to assume someone created, since we don't have the above information. -
Rubato Garcia wrote: »So we just need a better theory. I'd buy that, maybe the Big Bang isn't the answer either but that doesn't validate Creationism. One explanation being more "adequate" than the other doesn't mean they aren't both wrong.
Well in this case one of them HAS to be right. Either the universe created itself or something created the universe. Most astronomers agree that the universe hasn't existed forever because of the way its expanding.
It could have created itself in other ways than the Big Bang, that's the point I was making since you don't think that's an adequate theory. -
i agree w/ t/s
-
science has moved away from the big bang theory it's no longer the leading theory in many ways now many scientist claim that the universe came to be from quantum fluctuations in a vacuum without boring you this theory basically states that this universe exists because it was possible for it to exist
-
Your argument fails on a couple grounds
Those are all man made objects you mention in the OP
It injects a bias into the analogy similar to the intelligent design argument
"When I see a watch I know a human made it, therefore the universe has a maker too"
Except watches are human creations
If you had no prior experience to watches, say you were a papoose that had never seen one before, you would not necessarily know it is a human creation
the bias of your experiences with watches informs you that humans made it
Much like it would in your example
Your conclusion that the universe needs a creator because of its complexity fails to realize it's own shortsightedness:
If the complexity of the universe necessitates an intelligent designer then surely the complexity of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being does too.
So then you say what, that ? made himself? Then you commit the same alleged transgression you just criticized.
-
in order for the laws of the universe to create the universe they must have an existence apart from the universe.
