Ana the Ist
Aggressively serene!
I'm pointing them out just fine, why would someone else need to?
You haven't pointed out one flaw yet lol. Can theism and atheism both be true? Why not?
Upvote
0
I'm pointing them out just fine, why would someone else need to?
No...it makes no difference which came first. The word "opposite" is derived from the word "oppose" lol...they are opposites. The refer to opposite positions on the existence of god. If one is true...the other is false. If one is logical...then the other is illogical.
Why do you think that it matters which one is first? You realize that they cannot both be true...right? For the same reason that they cannot both be true...they cannot both be logical. I've already shown atheism to be logical...you haven't done the same for theism.
Morality is completely different. If I were to agree with this analogy...then what you're saying is similar to saying that since being moral is logical, then being amoral is logical too (since it came first). See why that doesn't work? They are opposites.
I wouldn't be a theist if I didn't think it was logical to be a theist.
What I'm saying is that atheism is contradictory and illogical. Obviously you disagree, but like you said we can't both be right.
So you think theism and atheism began simultaniously? Neither came before the other?
It's seems more logical that someone first claimed God is true and then after that someone opposed the claim. No?
Aah, that's where the flaw is (i.m.h.o.).Yet I made a logical explanation for my atheism...and you couldn't find any flaws in it. Here it is again...
Premise 1- We need evidence to support a belief. (You already agreed with this premise)
Premise 2-There is no evidence of any god.
Aah, that's where the flaw is (i.m.h.o.).
There is plenty of evidence for the existence of gods and God.
Especially for the Bible, there is proof for a lot of its accuracy.
There is no proof in a natural science kind of way, but even there there's a lot of evidence to make a good case for God's existence, at least, in the past, regarding the origins of existence in general.
With a passion for truth, logic and reason, philosophers tend to conclude God can not not-exist.
The explanatory power of an existing God is much greater, it's Occam's razor.
That which brought forth the universe and living nature has outperformed humanity's creating capabilities by lightyears, therefore that which brought forth the universe and living nature is superior to us by lightyears.
This concerns consciousness, knowledge, imagination, a plan (goal), ability (to create), motivation, power and action.
You haven't explained anything.Possibly. I have a lot of logical ideas that point to the truth of God. I can't force anyone to accept them as logical though, but I can explain them in different logical ways.
Yet I made a logical explanation for my atheism...and you couldn't find any flaws in it. Here it is again...
Premise 1- We need evidence to support a belief. (You already agreed with this premise)
Premise 2-There is no evidence of any god.
Premise 3-Therefore, it is logical to lack a belief in god. (Atheism)
Can you construct a logical explanation for your theism?
It doesn't matter which came first. Being first doesn't make a belief correct.
So what, for purposes of this argument, do you consider this tenet of atheism that could be correct or incorrect?The point I'm making is very simple and I'm sure even many atheists would agree. If theism is correct then atheism is incorrect, but if theism is incorrect then so is atheism.
I can think of countless instances where a negative reaction to a claim can be correct, even though it wouldn´t exist weren´t it for the positive claim. So quite obviously there is some hidden premise in this argument that - in your opinion - makes this a special case. I´m wondering what that is.But your arguing that atheism is correct and theism is incorrect, but in reality this is impossible because atheism would not even exist if there wasn't theism, this is true whether theism is correct or not.
Wrong about what precisely?So atheists are wrong if theism is right and atheists are wrong
The point I'm making is very simple and I'm sure even many atheists would agree. If theism is correct then atheism is incorrect, but if theism is incorrect then so is atheism.
So, to summarize this nugget of logic: Even if God doesn´t exist God exists?If evidence arose that disproved God, wherever that evidence came from would become the highest source of knowledge.
Theists simply believe God is the highest source of knowledge.
If theism is correct then atheism is incorrect, but if theism is incorrect then so is atheism.
Thanks.You're certainly entitled to your opinion...
You mean like evolutionists, who claim dead unconscious things can outperform all of humanity, and produce the universe and living nature?and this is generally where the discussion about the existence of god begins. At this point though, the burden of proof is upon you the claimant (since you're claiming evidence exists).
It's about logic, reason and the quest for truth, that's what philosophy is.This is a weird kind of argument from authority. It's not as if philosophers have some special powers that determine whether god exists or not. Also, what are you basing this on? Some sort of survey?
Occam's razor is not on your side here.I think a lot of theists forget some of the more important aspects of Occams Razor. It only applies to explanations which are possible...and then they have to be equal in every other respect. If it were merely the simplest explanation for any question...the answer would always just be "magic".
Baloney.That doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever. If theism is incorrect, we have the situation that we experience today. Theists are incorrect that God exists, and atheists have been right all along to be skeptical of theistic claims.
Wow. This is... wow.You mean like evolutionists, who claim dead unconscious things can outperform all of humanity, and produce the universe and living nature?
As they say: Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.
And so we're waiting for some 150 years now...
I agree, it's pathetic to claim it's science and fact, to claim it at all.Wow. This is... wow.
Thanks.
But it's not my opinion that produces the evidence..
You mean like evolutionists, who claim dead unconscious things can outperform all of humanity, and produce the universe and living nature?
As they say: Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.
And so we're waiting for some 150 years now....
Uhm... Now how do i bend this back to the question about objective morality...?
..oops....
It's about logic, reason and the quest for truth, that's what philosophy is.
Strange how naturalists usually dismiss this...Occam's razor is not on your side here.
Our reality (the universe and living nature) is very very complex and has many purposeful traits.
Mankind can study it in many ways, various disciplines, and still many, many questions remain.
So it's beyond our intelligence, hence the cause is beyond our intelligence (and skills etc...)
That's the logical conclusion..
Trying to explain everything with naturalistic (dead and unconscious) processes while being unable to disprove the obvious is in fact far fetched, Occam would shake his head....
Even Darwin would dismiss his ideas in light of the knowledge gathered by science, like DNA (code).
It's naturalistic evolution, dead things evolving into living things by themselves,without a purpose or reason.You're right about this.
.
I've never heard of this claim...certainly never heard it from a scientist in any of evolutions relevant fields.
You mean geneticists (and not all,at all) support the idea.DNA supports evolutionary theory...just ask any geneticist.
Speaking of books...It's naturalistic evolution, dead things evolving into living things by themselves,without a purpose or reason.
Get a clue, you have the brains.You mean geneticists (and not all,at all) support the idea.
DNA reduces it to poor fantasy.
Data does not write itself.
Books don't either.
Ask any information scientist.
I agree, it's pathetic to claim it's science and fact, to claim it at all.
Who can truly believe DNA writes itself?