Why Atheism is Not Logical or Rational (no bible thumping)
Options
Comments
-
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.
I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.
As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer. -
See my reply to BoldChild about the underlined.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.
To the bolded,I say the explanation of a Supreme Being that always was answers this. Science says that because of the way the Universe is expanding, it most likely had a definite point in space/time where it "started". It's not likely that the Universe has always existed. The existence of a theoretical (for the sake of argument) Creator that predates the existence of the Universe would clear this up, because it itself wouldn't need a creator because it always was, unlike human life, the universe, and the man-made objects in the o/p . -
in order for the laws of the universe to create the universe they must have an existence apart from the universe.
And that's impossible. The very idea of the Universe coming from "nothingness" violates Newton's(?) law that states that energy is neither created nor destroyed
-
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
is there a name for this theory ? @zombie -
QUANTUM fluctuations in a vacuum is not one single theory but it is essential for all quantum theories that deal with the creation of the universe there must be a harmonious relationship between Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and quantum fluctuations for these theories to be true. this presents a problem because the creation of subatomic particles by quantum fluctuation cannot be observed only the effects of their brief existence can be observed . the uncertainty principle limits the time that the particles created by quantum fluctuation can exist. The greater the energy of the fluctuation the less time it's corresponding particles may last and that is why the subatomic particles created by quntum fluctuations come into being and disappear so quickly.
if the universe were created by quantum fluctuations then the universe which has to have a lot of energy would pop out of existence very quickly. scientist propose a zero energy universe but that is a whole next load of complex ? .
-
If you set a table and chair and you ask a aboriginal in Australia upon first contact with the European, about it's purpose without explanation or demonstration, they would ponder for eternity, or use it for something completely, go do something they actually care about rather then stare at foreign objects, or use it for something unintended. They may have independently developed something similar because the concept is universal. The concept of the table in unimportant to an ant other then the fact that it contains breadcrumbs. It's still an object with angles and a surface. That table serves no purpose to the tree that is now a table.
-
I'm a believer and all, but believing in ? isn't really logical. That's kinda the point. You're supposed to operate based on faith which means you believe even if you don't have a logical reason to do so.
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »I'm a believer and all, but believing in ? isn't really logical. That's kinda the point. You're supposed to operate based on faith which means you believe even if you don't have a logical reason to do so.
Believing in ? isn't logical or believing in the Abrahamic incarnation of ? ? -
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.
I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.
As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.
Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and ? . At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations. -
Rubato Garcia wrote: »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.
I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.
As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.
Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and ? . At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations.
If you're an atheist, answer this for me, and anybody who's an atheist feel free to answer this as well: Why do you adamantly deny the possibility of intelligent design of the universe when there's no solid evidence that disproves it? -
Rubato Garcia wrote: »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.
I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.
As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.
Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and ? . At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations.
BUT THE problem is that earth like the table has a limited existence in this universe and ? does not -
Rubato Garcia wrote: »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.
I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.
As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.
Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and ? . At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations.
If you're an atheist, answer this for me, and anybody who's an atheist feel free to answer this as well: Why do you adamantly deny the possibility of intelligent design of the universe when there's no solid evidence that disproves it?
I wouldn't call myself an atheist...but agnostic is too far the other direction. "Doubtful agnostic" would be more appropriate. I think the existence of a ? -like being is somewhat possible, but if so, it's nowhere near the way people imagine it to be. Man created ? in his own image. -
Rubato Garcia wrote: »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.
I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.
As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.
Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and ? . At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations.
BUT THE problem is that earth like the table has a limited existence in this universe and ? does not
No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right -
Rubato Garcia wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »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.
I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.
As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.
Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and ? . At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations.
BUT THE problem is that earth like the table has a limited existence in this universe and ? does not
No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right
can you prove that ? has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that ? has no existence then he very well could exist. -
See my reply to BoldChild about the underlined.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.
To the bolded,I say the explanation of a Supreme Being that always was answers this. Science says that because of the way the Universe is expanding, it most likely had a definite point in space/time where it "started". It's not likely that the Universe has always existed. The existence of a theoretical (for the sake of argument) Creator that predates the existence of the Universe would clear this up, because it itself wouldn't need a creator because it always was, unlike human life, the universe, and the man-made objects in the o/p .
If the Universe has a starting point then that being would seemingly need to exist outside of space and time in order to create it. How exactly would such a being function?
It's a huge assumption to believe that it is even possible when as far as I know it is not.
Also, atheism derived from skepticism is not resolved by your issue
If beliefs are to be based on evidence, and there is none for a ? , then the belief is not reasonable -
Rubato Garcia wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »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.
I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.
As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.
Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and ? . At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations.
BUT THE problem is that earth like the table has a limited existence in this universe and ? does not
No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right
can you prove that ? has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that ? has no existence then he very well could exist.
Never said it wasn't possible -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »I'm a believer and all, but believing in ? isn't really logical. That's kinda the point. You're supposed to operate based on faith which means you believe even if you don't have a logical reason to do so.
Believing in ? isn't logical or believing in the Abrahamic incarnation of ? ?
Believing in a ? in general. There isn't any hard proof supporting the existence of a ? . At the end of the day, faith is your only reason to believe. You can't really make a fully logical argument for why there must be a ? . You can make good arguments, but they will always include some speculation or faith based assertions. -
Rubato Garcia wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »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.
I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.
As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.
Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and ? . At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations.
BUT THE problem is that earth like the table has a limited existence in this universe and ? does not
No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right
can you prove that ? has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that ? has no existence then he very well could exist.
Never said it wasn't possible
Good so that means atheism is not logical. -
Rubato Garcia wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »Rubato Garcia wrote: »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.
I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.
As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.
Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and ? . At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations.
BUT THE problem is that earth like the table has a limited existence in this universe and ? does not
No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right
can you prove that ? has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that ? has no existence then he very well could exist.
Never said it wasn't possible
Good so that means atheism is not logical.
I disagree. But I also never said I was an atheist. -
See my reply to BoldChild about the underlined.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.
To the bolded,I say the explanation of a Supreme Being that always was answers this. Science says that because of the way the Universe is expanding, it most likely had a definite point in space/time where it "started". It's not likely that the Universe has always existed. The existence of a theoretical (for the sake of argument) Creator that predates the existence of the Universe would clear this up, because it itself wouldn't need a creator because it always was, unlike human life, the universe, and the man-made objects in the o/p .
If the Universe has a starting point then that being would seemingly need to exist outside of space and time in order to create it. How exactly would such a being function?
It's a huge assumption to believe that it is even possible when as far as I know it is not.
Also, atheism derived from skepticism is not resolved by your issue
If beliefs are to be based on evidence, and there is none for a ? , then the belief is not reasonable
I stated the underlined myself. My main point was that most atheists are just as dogmatic as theists. @ the bolded, who knows? Perhaps a multiverse? All speculation. Show me some science or evidence that disproves the existence of a Creator, or that explains the beginning of the universe.
I pose to you the same question that I asked Ruberto, if you're an atheist what reason do you have to discount the possibility of the universe being intelligently designed? -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »I'm a believer and all, but believing in ? isn't really logical. That's kinda the point. You're supposed to operate based on faith which means you believe even if you don't have a logical reason to do so.
Believing in ? isn't logical or believing in the Abrahamic incarnation of ? ?
Believing in a ? in general. There isn't any hard proof supporting the existence of a ? . At the end of the day, faith is your only reason to believe. You can't really make a fully logical argument for why there must be a ? . You can make good arguments, but they will always include some speculation or faith based assertions.
A logical argument that supports the belief in a ? is the existence of the universe. Unless something is infinite then it had to have a starting point. Most astronomers believe that the Universe had a starting point, so how would it be illogical to believe that an outside force contributed to the starting point? I don't think it's illogical to come to the conclusion that a created thing had a creator. -
See my reply to BoldChild about the underlined.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.
To the bolded,I say the explanation of a Supreme Being that always was answers this. Science says that because of the way the Universe is expanding, it most likely had a definite point in space/time where it "started". It's not likely that the Universe has always existed. The existence of a theoretical (for the sake of argument) Creator that predates the existence of the Universe would clear this up, because it itself wouldn't need a creator because it always was, unlike human life, the universe, and the man-made objects in the o/p .
If the Universe has a starting point then that being would seemingly need to exist outside of space and time in order to create it. How exactly would such a being function?
It's a huge assumption to believe that it is even possible when as far as I know it is not.
Also, atheism derived from skepticism is not resolved by your issue
If beliefs are to be based on evidence, and there is none for a ? , then the belief is not reasonable
I stated the underlined myself. My main point was that most atheists are just as dogmatic as theists. @ the bolded, who knows? Perhaps a multiverse? All speculation. Show me some science or evidence that disproves the existence of a Creator, or that explains the beginning of the universe.
I pose to you the same question that I asked Ruberto, if you're an atheist what reason do you have to discount the possibility of the universe being intelligently designed?
The intelligent design argument was squashed pretty easily by Neil Degrasse Tyson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEl9kVl6KPc
TLDW: It's an unintelligent design
Furthermore it's an argument by analogy, which is basically the weakest argument that could be made
There is little evidence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being
Also a lot of the intelligent design stuff can be explained by evolution
But evolution has more proof
So it is the more believable view -
See my reply to BoldChild about the underlined.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.
To the bolded,I say the explanation of a Supreme Being that always was answers this. Science says that because of the way the Universe is expanding, it most likely had a definite point in space/time where it "started". It's not likely that the Universe has always existed. The existence of a theoretical (for the sake of argument) Creator that predates the existence of the Universe would clear this up, because it itself wouldn't need a creator because it always was, unlike human life, the universe, and the man-made objects in the o/p .
If the Universe has a starting point then that being would seemingly need to exist outside of space and time in order to create it. How exactly would such a being function?
It's a huge assumption to believe that it is even possible when as far as I know it is not.
Also, atheism derived from skepticism is not resolved by your issue
If beliefs are to be based on evidence, and there is none for a ? , then the belief is not reasonable
I stated the underlined myself. My main point was that most atheists are just as dogmatic as theists. @ the bolded, who knows? Perhaps a multiverse? All speculation. Show me some science or evidence that disproves the existence of a Creator, or that explains the beginning of the universe.
I pose to you the same question that I asked Ruberto, if you're an atheist what reason do you have to discount the possibility of the universe being intelligently designed?
The intelligent design argument was squashed pretty easily by Neil Degrasse Tysonhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEl9kVl6KPc
TLDW: It's an unintelligent design
Furthermore it's an argument by analogy, which is basically the weakest argument that could be made
There is little evidence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being
Also a lot of the intelligent design stuff can be explained by evolution
But evolution has more proof
So it is the more believable view
evolution is not about the creation of life it's about the change in life and there is no real proof for any of the scientific answers to why the universe exists. The only thing that we can know for sure is that we think that we exist. and the so called called squashing done by mr tyson only boosters the argument that life on earth is special exactly because the universe seems so harsh. but yet we are here when quite frankly maybe we should not be. -
^^ Watched the video. So your belief in a nutshell is that since this universe isn't utopian there must be no ? .
Argument by analogy is basically the weakest argument by what standard? That's purely a subjective statement.
I said nothing of omniscient,omnipotent,or omnibeneveloent, don't know where you got that idea from. I said creator of the universe only.
The theory that life originated from a single celled organism has some major flaws that are typically and conveniently glossed over by those who tote that stance.
So nah not really buying that. -
If the argument is intelligent design proves the existence of a creator, but the design is not intelligent, then it obviously does not prove ? now does it?
DERP
Arguments by analogy are trash
look at the first comments to this thread, they stressed the failures of the analogy and the details it can not explain
Seldom are two objects similar enough for an analogy to really hold after the differences are examined
It's well established in logic and philosophy
Abiogenesis is a completely different topic
even if it is not true it does not prove a ? exists, which is the topic of the thread
Atheism = No belief in ?
Basically, you feel a ? exists so you think it's true
that's fine
I don't think with my feelings though
