It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Logical Atheist Vs Illogical Theist (With FlowChart)

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by micmerci
 


You'd have to accept that Thor exists at the same time, and Yahweh....and Allah....and Ra...So monotheism seems an impossibility.

Unless you state that only 1 God has created the multiverse as well, but by your anology, 0 Gods has created the multiverse construct as well.

Again, this would be better explained by a metaphysicists specialising in multiverse theorem.




posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ExistentialNightmare
 


To simplify matters it can be inferred that a deity exists.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by micmerci
 


Anything can be inferred, as long as you're careful to make the claim unfalsifiable.

"There's a diamond in my back garden, but i refuse to dig for it"

"I can fly, but only when no body is looking".

I've heard too many "God of the Gaps" arguments, to be quite honest.


The term "God of the gaps" is sometimes used in describing the perceived incremental retreat of religious explanations of physical phenomena in the face of increasingly comprehensive scientific explanations for those phenomena


Again, ask a metaphyscist, i'm sure they'll give you an informed answer on the basis of the multiverse theorem (quantam hypothesis) but again, multiverse theorem itself is unfalsifiable.

If you are right, we are both incorrect, and correct. And we'd continue to play the game -

You say there's a kangaroo military base within our solar system that we havn't discovered? (out of reach of our best telecsopes?)

By your reasoning, we would have to concede that we are both wrong and right at the same time? LOL.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ExistentialNightmare
 


I am just debating within the logic parameters that you have laid out from the onset. And although you may have stated it in jest, we have seemingly come to the same conclusion. A conclusion that I might add was predicted from the beginning of the argument. We must conclude that we are both right and both wrong until there is proof applied to one side or the other. That is the whole premise of the experiment. Not "so simple" as another poster remarked.

My use of this argument has nothing to do with multiverses or God for that matter. It has everything to do with how believers are viewed as weak minded imbeciles by non-believers because there is some supposed "scientific" postulation that categorically concludes that there is no God.

But you posted that we must accept that we are both wrong and right concerning the matter at hand. I agree. In doing my part I don't go around telling atheist they are ignorant, illogical or anything else for that matter for not seeing things my way. Why is it that the same attitude cannot be displayed by atheists towards theists?



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by micmerci
 


I knew what you're were trying to imply from the very beggining.

God at a basic level, is a theory.

If a scientist has a bad theory (or an ultimately incorrect theory), does the scientist insist that he is both correct, and incorrect? Is that a viable argument to exlude someone from the reasonable critical faculties of logic? It wouldn't stand, you wouldn't last long in the scientific community.

If you have a bad theory, you have a bad theory, What makes it worse is when there is no physical or logical reasoning to suggest a certain theory is correct. (You have invisible demons in your shoes that exist in another realm)

Before we discovered the dinosaurs existed, No one could make any claim, because there was no knowledge, the same should apply here. We don't know what this reality is, whether there is a God behind it or not.

Of course, they could make an animal up and state that this animals exists, and when we never discover, they could just inferr by use of your shroedinger's cat anology.

if God DOES exist, the "creation" is full of destruction, chaos, genocide. We have to accept that an omnipotent God willed this into existence, and that our sun will eventually self-destruct and destroy us.

If God DOES NOT exist, we don't have to blame chaos and destruction, cancer, termites, universal heat-death on some supernatural figure, that we caricature with human emotion.
edit on 8-8-2011 by ExistentialNightmare because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare
reply to post by micmerci
 


I knew what you're were trying to imply from the very beggining.

God at a basic level, is a theory.

If a scientist has a bad theory (or an ultimately incorrect theory), does the scientist insist that he is both correct, and incorrect? Is that a viable argument to exlude someone from the reasonable critical faculties of logic? It wouldn't stand, you wouldn't last long in the scientific community.

If you have a bad theory, you have a bad theory, What's worse is that there is no physical or logical reasoning to suggest your theory is correct.

Before we discovered the dinosaurs existed, No one could make any claim, because there was no knowledge, the same should apply here. We don't know what this reality is, whether there is a God behind it or not.

Of course, they could make an animal up and state that this animals exists, and when we never discover, they could just inferr by use of your shroedinger's cat anology.

And if God DOES exist, he's made a bad universe. If God DOES NOT exist, we don't have to blame chaos and destruction, cancer, termites, universal heat-death on some supernatural figure, that we caricature with human emotion.
edit on 8-8-2011 by ExistentialNightmare because: (no reason given)


You do realize that this debate could go on indefinitely, don't you?

Yes, when broken down to it's most basic components, God is a theory. However, I will debate without ceasing that it isn't a bad theory. There is no proof contrary to this "theory of God". You are obviously an intelligent person and I am certain that you could create a laundry list of scientific data pointing towards the nonexistence of God. By the same token, I don't think I am brilliant but I don't think I am a shlub either. I can come back with a list of counterpoints. And it could go on and on....

I am certain of one thing... if there was any proof on either side of the argument... that's PROOF, not theories or faith and beliefs.... then it would be cased closed and this thread would not even need to exist.
edit on 8-8-2011 by micmerci because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by micmerci
 




You do realize that this debate could go on indefinitely, don't you?

Yes, when broken down to it's most basic components, God is a theory. However, I will debate without ceasing that it is a bad theory. There is no proof contrary to this "theory of God".


I could inferr any "truth", as long as it's unfalsifiable.

"Argument from ignorance"


Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa).


Your use of logic (and in relation to the above fallacy) can be summarised in Russell's Teapot anology:-


Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.


Russell's Teapot (Arguments from ignorance)

Again, when someone makes a positive claim that can't be confirmed; YES, the argument could go on "indefinitely" until there is sufficient evidence to falsify.
edit on 8-8-2011 by ExistentialNightmare because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
We believe in a god - - because we are told there is a god.

There is a remote tribe that has no god belief. If they can't "see it" - "touch it" - or it doesn't directly affect them - - - they have no use for it.

All I see is - - - god is a concept early man created to explain what he could not explain.



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
I fall somewhere in between Pascal's Wager and the Christian Wager, though I am not sure they are so different. I would rather believe, live a life of hope, die and be wrong, then to not believe, live a life of..."is this all there is?", and be wrong.

That being said, I don't profess that my understanding of the Christian God is complete or completely correct. There is too much unknown about the world and universe around me to not reach for more knowledge and understanding. I share what I believe with those who want to know and don't force my views on others. That serves no one.

The United States Constitution provides for Freedom OF Religion, not freedom from religion. If I want to bow my head at a Football Game and say a prayer for the safety of the players, that is my right.

I read something recently, but don't remember where: " I do not fully understand an atheist convention, I mean I don't believe in mermaids, but I don't go to conventions talking about the lack of their existence and about how nobody should ever speak of them again?!?

Star and Flag for putting this subject out there in a thoughtful and non antagonistic manner.





edit on 8-8-2011 by pandora0629 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-8-2011 by pandora0629 because: Kudos



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by pandora0629
I read something recently, but don't remember where: " I do not fully understand an atheist convention, I mean I don't believe in mermaids, but I don't go to conventions talking about the lack of their existence and about how nobody should ever speak of them again?!?


ALL Atheists are Agnostic.

Atheist simply means - - lack of belief in a god. In other words - - show proof there is a god.

There are Atheist conventions? Never heard of that.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


From the perspective of rational reasoning/logic in OP.......

You wrote:

["Heres a question for you. The Big Bang happened, this has been proved by science."]

Well, not that categorically...it's still somehow 'cutting edge', though with a very high degree of 'truth' probability. For people unfamiliar with real science, this may appear a pernickety detail. In real science it isn't.

Quote: ["So HOW did the ancients know it happened if God didnt tell them?"]

Precisely WHAT ancients, and how does the common idea, that things had a start leads to identifying it with a Big Bang theory?

Quote: ["I say the ancients knew about the Big Bang because in the Bible's Book of Genesis:"]

Which secret version of genesis are you referring to? The version(s) I know are scientific non-sense.

Quote: ["Now ask yourself again. How did Moses (whom wrote the book of Genesis on Mt. Sinai during the Exodus) know that there was a Big Bang if God didn't tell him? The Void was dark, and God said let there be light, and the darkness of the void exploded into light and the darkness was illuminated."]

You appear to be unfamiliar with real science.

Quote: ["Clearly The Big Bang didnt start of its own accord."]

Which has nothing to do with the cosmology of Big Banging. You are here referring to cosmogony, a mainly philosophical or theological subject.

Quote: ["There has to be a catalyst, and it wasnt gravity."]

And according to the popular theist methodology of filling knowledge-gaps with: "It's 'god' what done it", this 'catalyst' is 'god'.

Quote: ["The power of God was such a magnitude that just His uttering the words "let there be light" caused this mass to explode and fill an empty universe that was dark and without form, with light and mass and gave it form. But the question remains the same, HOW did Moses know this if he hadnt been told by a being of vast and greater intelligence when in his time there was no science, no telescopes, when everyone thought the earth was flat?"]

Well, now you're just recycling your argument, and adding a bit of circular reasoning to spice it up.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by micmerci
Can anyone comment on the Schroedinger's cat post that I previously posted? I am interested on peoples positions on this.


Witout being a professional physicist, I can give it a try. Any special perspective of your preference? And how does it relate to topic?



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by micmerci
Can anyone comment on the Schroedinger's cat post that I previously posted? I am interested on peoples positions on this.


Witout being a professional physicist, I can give it a try. Any special perspective of your preference? And how does it relate to topic?


Very interested in reading your take, Bogo.

Peace.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExistentialNightmare

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by micmerci
Can anyone comment on the Schroedinger's cat post that I previously posted? I am interested on peoples positions on this.


Witout being a professional physicist, I can give it a try. Any special perspective of your preference? And how does it relate to topic?


Very interested in reading your take, Bogo.

Peace.


A couple of years ago, my amateur ruminations led me to to the conclusion, that the interpretation of 'Schroedinger's cat' must be wrong. A couple of professional physicists have later told me, that the popular interpretation IS wrong, and that Schroedinger actually meant the opposite with the example.

So all the resulting new-agey stuff with trousers of time, parallel universes, observer-created reality etc., in the POPULAR form of these hypotheses are based on a misunderstanding. Some of the more informed hypotheses though may have something to them.

A LOT of theist pseudo-science argumentation is based on such misconceptions, and as you wrote earlier on this thread a metaphysical perspective would be better suited, than a theist perspective.

And here I would like to stress my own semantic definition of metaphysics. For me it includes real physics, not excluding it.

(And that I only dabble somewhat, I'm not the ultimate authority on it).

Details on request.
edit on 9-8-2011 by bogomil because: typo and punctuation



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
According to that chart I'm a christian theist.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Wrong place to post this. Sorry.
edit on 12-8-2011 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


I'm an existentialist, apparently.





top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join