Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Not Prince Hamlet · 03-21-2002, 06:47 PM

ROFL! I love it!

Viti · 03-21-2002, 08:45 PM

Thumbs up on that one from me too...I spit out my diet coke

Queen of Swords · 03-21-2002, 08:49 PM

Perfect rebuttal.

03-21-2002, 09:25 PM

Quote:

I doubt a truly original thought has ever been posted here.

Although this site is rich with memes (not a bad thing, mind you) it should be noted that everyone here has posted thoughts that have never been had before and will never be had again.

Quote:

the belief that there is no god or supernatural, is logically inconsistent where one can not positively state how the universe came to exist. With that establised...

It's as if you haven't even reading the responses to the arguments. First of all, being unable to positively state how the universe came to exist is NOT logically inconsistent, it is simply human limitations. Secondly, you also fail to explain the existence of the universe, although I don't blame you for it.

Quote:

I will not rely on the bible as self-proving, however, the bible is evidence for the existence of god and I will make reference to it as a piece of evidence.

In what way?

Quote:

Before I begin my proof, I would like to pose a question to the self-described atheists and agnostics reading this: What proof do you require to believe in god in general and the christian

Such an overarching hypothesis would require a substantial, coherent and broad base of evidence. God will provide, I have no doubt.

Blurred_Void · 03-21-2002, 10:02 PM

How about this one from <a href="http://www.coolsig.com/" target="_blank">Coolsigs.com</a> ?

"If Atheism is a religion, then "bald" is a hair colour"

JamesKrieger · 03-21-2002, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LadyShea:
<strong>Thumbs up on that one from me too...I spit out my diet coke</strong>

Thanks, everyone. I can't take credit for it though. My friend atheist friend Long said that in a MSN chatroom once so I stole it from him.

HRG · 03-22-2002, 12:59 AM

Another rich pickings for connoisseurs of the non-sequitur

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus_Finch:
[QB]Atheism is logically inconsistent. "Atheism" is the belief that there is no god and no supernatural phenomena. Therefore, atheists must believe that all phenomena have materialist explanations.

Which does not mean that they must be able to produce an explanation on the spot.

Quote:

Here is the problem. Logically, all phenomena must have a cause.

False. Logics says nothing about existence of causes. Quantum physics suggests that the majority of events is uncaused and causality at the macroscopic level is a consequence of averaging over many uncauses events.

Quote:

Even if one believes in the Big Bang it just begs the question: Where did the matter which caused the Big Bang come from? There is no logical answer for that question which relies solely on a materialistic explanation.

Silly. An explanation would be that it came from the collision of two universes, like in the ekpyrotic model.

Quote:

If you do not have a proven answer to that question then you must, logically, accept the possibility that a divine being is the first cause.

Non-sequitur. "We don't know" is always an alternative.

BTW, there is always a possibility that a divine being did something (e.g. that my cat created the universe last Thursday). So what ?

Quote:

Therefore, in a nutshell, atheism, the firm belief that there is no god, is logically inconsistent.

But atheism is not the firm belief that there is no god, but the lack of belief that a god exists.

BTW, since your theism cannot exclude the possibility that my cat created the universe, it would be logically inconsistent as well - if your argument was valid. But it isn't.

Quote:

Let me answer the common response in advance. Atheists often counter that god is not a satisfactory answer for the "first cause" because it begs the question of who created god. This is not a logical inconsistency for theists because they are not constrained by the requirement that all phenomena have materialistic explanations. Therefore, theist can remain logically consistent because they accept the supernatural as a possible explanation for phenomena, including the eternal existence of God.

If "All phenomena must have causes" is a logical necessity (as you claim; of course it isn't), then it applies to the supernatural as well. Thus the phenomenon "God" would need a cause, too. This is not an escape route for theists!

Regards,
HRG.

HRG · 03-22-2002, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
[QB]All!

It is logically inconsistent to discuss some concept that is believed not to exist. By discussing the concept you are assuming the concept is true. To assume the concept is true, you believe it 'may' exist, when in fact you believe it doesn't. That is logically inconsistent.

Absolutely ridiculous. So you could not discuss Norse mythology without assuming that Odin exists ?

The concept of God/Supreme Being/Ultimate Cause which is being discussed here does exist: within the mind of theists.

HRG.

HRG · 03-22-2002, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus_Finch:
[QB]

You want evidence that matter has to have a beginning or a cause? Look around you. Are you aware of anything which does not have a cause?

Yes. The vacuum fluctuations which show up in the Lamb shift and the Casimir effect are causeless.

Quote:

The evidence around you suggests that all phenomena have a cause. Why should the universe be any different.

Because "around you" is a very restricted domain: large wrt quantum effects but small wrt cosmological distances, at small velocities and in a weak gravitational field. We know from relativity theory that the universe as a whole does not behave like this restricted domain.

HRG.

MadMordigan · 03-22-2002, 01:12 AM

Thanks, everyone. I can't take credit for it though. My friend atheist friend Long said that in a MSN chatroom once so I stole it from him.

Amatures create. Masters steal. -MadMordigan

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-21-2002, 06:47 PM	#81
Not Prince Hamlet Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 1,309	ROFL! I love it!

03-21-2002, 08:45 PM	#82
Viti Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Down South Posts: 12,879	Thumbs up on that one from me too...I spit out my diet coke

03-21-2002, 08:49 PM	#83
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	Perfect rebuttal.

03-21-2002, 10:02 PM	#85
Blurred_Void Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 7	How about this one from <a href="http://www.coolsig.com/" target="_blank">Coolsigs.com</a> ? "If Atheism is a religion, then "bald" is a hair colour"

03-22-2002, 01:12 AM	#90
MadMordigan Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 2,704	Thanks, everyone. I can't take credit for it though. My friend atheist friend Long said that in a MSN chatroom once so I stole it from him. Amatures create. Masters steal. -MadMordigan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.