malookiemaloo

Welcome to the Sec. web.

There is really no point in making statements like this here. While as a matter of faith I agree with you, you must be able to back up your assertions with some sort of logical argument.

The points you make are sustainable although it will take a much better apologetic than me to defeat the skeptics on this web.


m

diana

Yep.

malookiemaloo,

If you aren't a good enough apologetic to defeat the skeptics here and thus prove the sustainability of the "points"--I'd call them "assertions," but I'll spot you your "points"--then how do you know they are sustainable at all?

If you yourself are unable to argue for them so as to defeat the skeptics here, aren't you yourself taking their "sustainability" on faith?

Yes...that was the sound of the gauntlet being thrown.

d

malookiemaloo

Tes I have no difficulty in accepting the points (or assertions) in faith. Faith is the sceptics 'little problem'.

But to argue from a philosophical standpoint is beyond me, I'm afraid. Pains me to say so, but there it is.

At least I do not claim to know everything!!

Gaunltlet not even picked up!


M

diana

It isn't yours too? How do you know what's worthy of your belief and what isn't, then?

Fair enough. So how do you know what to believe?

I don't know anyone who does. Good to know you aren't a nutcase.

Damn.

d

Mageth

To embrace Atheism is to abandon rationality.

And to "embrace" an invisible god that lives somewhere out there and pulls the strings on this puppet universe is somehow supposed to be "rational"?

Man cannot exist in a world without God.

You're right! All praise to the IPU!!! Hail her glorious invisible pinkness!!!

In other words, which god?

And do you believe in hell? Will god be present in hell? If not, then I guess we Infidels have nothing to worry about - we won't be able to exist there.

How can one explain logic, natural law, and the creation of the univerce without the existance of God?

Well, I've heard it done before, so I guess it can be done.

The simplest way: "logic and natural law are properties of the universe, which "sprung" into existence on its own, so to speak, at the "big bang". God did not have to push the button.

That's as much as you've provided for your side so far.

It is impossible to prove these things without God.

Prove logic? Why would I need to? It works, doesn't it?

Prove natural law? Drop a brick on your foot and see if it hurts.

Prove the creation of the universe? The universe exists, therefore it began existing (or always existed). Exactly how it came to exist, I don't claim to know.

I challenge any atheist to disprove me on any one of the afore mentioned points.

You need to step up to the plate first and prove the existence of a god, and then the existence of the particular god you believe in. It's you making the positive claim, not us.

And I'm pretty sure you'd claim that god is the "uncaused cause". Well, you can also prove that god is uncaused, and why god can be uncaused but the universe cannot be uncaused.

Please no ad hominem attacks.

Yer mother wears army boots.

Mageth

Faith is the sceptics 'little problem'.

Faith is the believer's 'little dodge'. Goddidit.

Conchobar

Originally posted by Sesshoumaru

To embrace Atheism is to abandon rationality.

The reverse is true. Atheism is an end product of strict rationality. An Atheists notes that one cannot see any god, hear any god, touch any god, measure any god. In short there is no evidence at all for god. So the rational position is to reject the hypothesis of God. Also God is an unnecessary hypothesis to explain the natural universe. We know how the universe behaved after the Big Bang. We know of the complexities of Evolution with a sequences of millions of specimens of animals that appeared, altered to new forms, some going extinct, and newer forms developing. This is mirrored not only in the fossil rock record but in the genetic codes that we all carry. Our Human genomes are history books of mans evolution from Cambrian (550 million years) Periods. Science has in recent years explained the mass of phenomena with few gaps in the record. Inventing a god to explain life is unnecessary.

Man cannot exist in a world without God.

But here I am. I exist. I am living proof that you are wrong. I am in my study typing this and Steve Earle sings "there ain't nobody here but me."

How can one explain logic, natural law, and the creation of the univerce without the existance of God?

Logic is strictly definable mathematically. 1 + 1 = 2 whether there is a god or not. Natural Law is based on the properties of matter and energy. It is inherent in the matter not something that is decreed by an invisible hypothetical thing. A circle not being a square is not because of the geometric shape not the decrees of invisible phantasms. The universe may have always been. Or it may be created by purely natural forces that are interdimensional that possess "natural" properties to produce universes like volcanoes produce lava. Postulating a god creator is only one of several possible causes of universes. The honest response is that "I don't know and you don't either." You can choose to attribute it to your particular god and I can attribute it to Mother Goose. But the truth is that we don't really know. I am just honest enough to admit it.

It is impossible to prove these things without God.

It is impossible to prove any god. But we know the universe of matter and energy are real. Only god is not backed by any evidence.

I challenge any atheist to disprove me on any one of the afore mentioned points. Please no ad hominem attacks.

I think that I did. I know the matter and energy universe exist. I know some about astrophyics and the formation of galaxies from nebula and black holes, the accretion of heavy elements from proto-stars to planets, and the evolution of life from one celled creatures to us. All of this shows no magical acts by an hypothetical god.

I can not disprove your god or anyone else's god, because there is not a shred of evidence for such a god. Something that does not appear to exist, and also has no evidence for or against is also impossible to disprove. You cannot disprove that I see purple eight legged 100 metre long frogs swimming in Lough Neagh.

Thank you sincerely,
Sesshoumaru

You are welcome as long as we keep it proper and civilised. So far so good, eh?

Conchobar

malookiemaloo

OK OK. Gauntlet picked up as best as I can.

The first line of Sesshoumara's post-who is conspicuous by his/her absence-says 'To embrace atheism is to abandon rationality'.

Now setting aside whether atheism is true or not, is it rational?


Everytime I log on to the Sec. web I see the following words:-

'Our goal is to defend and promote a nontheistic worldview which holds that the material world is all that there is, a closed system in no need of a supernatural explanation unto itself.'

To some faith is the 'achilles heel' of Christians. But why should it not be rational to think that there may be some supreme being beyond ourselves? It seems to me that non theists let their own intellect, understanding, knowledge, assessement of their own abilities be the yardstick against which the universe is judged. Is this a fair statement? 'If I do not understand it, it cannot be true' seems to be the rational atheists' motto.

You hold that the natural world is all that there is. Is this a faith stance? God is God. He does not not exist because we cannot rationalise His existence.

'in no NEED of a supernatural explanation'. The word NEED has always puzzled me here. NEED is very very subjective don't you think? What I may NEED may be different from what you may NEED.

Anyway, to get back to the point. I think atheism is irrational (but for the purposes of this discussion not necessarily wrong) because the atheists limits him/herself to limititations of his/her understanding adn knowledge.

On the other hand, to be a theist is rational but-again for the purposes of this discussion-not necessarily correct.


m

diana

Well, in rational thinking, one begins with the available evidence--acceptable and mutually-agreed-upon premises--and reaches a conclusion that is supported by those premises, but which does not state more than the premises would reasonably support.

The only premises that we agree upon at all (and some people still argue against this, but I think it's just for the sake of argument) are those things that are supported by our five senses, the windows through which we see the world. Any premises that state the existence of some being we cannot sense will not, I daresay, be found mutually acceptable.

For this reason, yes. Atheism is (as Conchobar just said in the post above) "the end product of strict rationality."

Theism, on the other hand, tries to reason backward, which isn't rational at all. Its arguments rely upon assertions that are not mutually acceptable (assuming you're using the argument to do something other than preach to the choir, of course). Its arguments are based almost exclusively upon circular reasoning and "after, therefore because of" fallacies. Any one of these things is a textbook example of how not to be rational.

Well, I think there may be some supreme being beyond ourselves. To not recognize this as a possibility is, IMO, irrational.

However, there's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip. While I'm more than willing to agree that there may be some supreme being, there's no rational reason to leap from that "maybe" to:

1. That being made the world.
2. That being created us.
3. That being cares about us.
4. That being is MY god (and all the rest are imposters).
5. That being loves me and will torment me forever if I don't worship him.

I don't understand quantum physics, but I do not argue that it cannot be true, so at the very least I'd say you oversimplify.

How do you judge the world, if not through your own intellect, understanding, knowledge and assessment of your own abilities? You aren't using my intellect (I hope), or Bob's understanding, or Jim's knowledge or Agnes' abilities. You're stuck with your own basis for understanding everything around you.

The difference between you and me, I think, is that I'm consistent in my application of skepticism. We can use the invisible dragon living in Carl Sagan's garage as an example. Are you skeptical of such a claim? Why? Why are you not equally skeptical of the idea of an invisible god? Inconsistency is irrational.

No. It's a reasonable conclusion we can reach from all available evidence. Until evidence arises that there is a supernatural world, it is irrational to assume one.

OK. By the same token, Your ability to rationalize his existence (at least to yourself) doesn't make him exist, either.

What we're looking for, via reason, is what makes sense to believe is true. What we can manage to talk ourselves into by replacing evidence with shaking arguments and a huge dose of hope does not pass for "reason."

Science can either present a supportable theory for observed phenomena or it can't. If it can't, it is obviously lacking something, and thus in NEED of some missing variable that will supply that explanation. I think this is what the humanist statement is saying. It isn't really concerned with whether we understand it well enough to determine what explanations are needed or not.

I've given my ideas of what "rational" entails. Please share yours. We might be simply suffering from dueling definitions here.

d

Eric H

quote Sesshoumaru
To embrace Atheism is to abandon rationality. Man cannot exist in a world without God. How can one explain logic, natural law, and the creation of the univerce without the existance of God? It is impossible to prove these things without God. I challenge any atheist to disprove me on any one of the afore mentioned points. Please no ad hominem attacks.

Thank you sincerely,
Sesshoumaru
-------------------------

Hello Sesshoumaru, Sadly I feel your comments cause confrontation, and probably do more harm than good to theism.

One thing that has come across very clearly to me on this forum; is that most people who have lost their faith in God, did so for what seem to be very rational reasons.

What you are talking about in your post is more to do with faith rather than reason, and rationality.

Peace
Eric