The origins of atheism

[Colter]

Can you see why claiming anything is eternally infinite in it's existence, without evidence, is irrational, gods/s not withstanding.

Spirituality is a subjective experience, Atheist know this about religious people, so they demand objective proofs. When none is forthcoming they claim victory.

 

[HitchSlap]

Spirituality is a subjective experience, Atheist know this about religious people, so they demand objective proofs. When none is forthcoming they claim victory.

That's how "victory" works.

 

[HitchSlap]

Depends if we can remain rational in our conversation. How many people do you see claiming that an eternal and infinite super leprechaun exists, other than yourself? Should I be inclined to believe this super leprechaun exists just because you've made it up?

Or should I be more inclined to believe an eternal and infinite God exists because millions of people claim to have personal evidence of this God?

Which is more rational to believe based on the presented evidence?

If you don't view millions of testimonies as evidence then you're clearly being irrational. Sure millions of testimonies doesn't mean its true, but it at least means it's worth looking into as objectively as possible. If you have preconceived notions about God, then you can't be objective when discussing God.

Are you really willing to hang your hat on an argumentum ad populum fallacy?

 

[HitchSlap]

Because it's revelation.

Curious, did you read the Urantia Book?

No.

 

[Colter]

That's how "victory" works.

That's how you become a legend in your own mind. Meanwhile there are other realities.

 

[Colter]

No.

Typical.

 

[Chriliman]

Can you see why claiming anything is eternally infinite in it's existence, without evidence, is irrational, gods/s not withstanding.

Hitchslap! Long time no see!

So you're saying the latest theories about an eternal multiverse or an eternal universe are also irrational?

Why can we entertain the concepts of eternity and infinity if it's irrational to do so?

 

[HitchSlap]

That's how you become a legend in your own mind. Meanwhile there are other realities.

There is only one reality.

We can know some things about reality.

Falsifiable models with predictive capabilities provide the best results.

 

[HitchSlap]

Typical.

Unnecessary.

 

[Chriliman]

Are you really willing to hang your hat on an argumentum ad populum fallacy?

Nope, I'm willing to hang my hat on the truth.

 

[HitchSlap]

Hitchslap! Long time no see!

So you're saying the latest theories about an eternal multiverse or an eternal universe are also irrational?

Why can we entertain the concepts of eternity and infinity of it's irrational to do so?

Because reality exists and is demonstrable. To make certain assertions based on observable reality is entirely reasonable. I trust you see the difference between this scenario and eternal lepre... er, god/s, no?

 

[HitchSlap]

Nope, I'm willing to hang my hat on the truth.

As determined by beliefs of millions of people.

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Depends if we can remain rational in our conversation. How many people do you see claiming that an eternal and infinite super leprechaun exists, other than yourself? Should I be inclined to believe this super leprechaun exists just because you've made it up?

Of course we can remain rational.

Can you disprove the super leprechaun with logic? I don't mind having little side discussions to the original point, but if you can't/won't answer a question then it is helpful to say so.

Or should I be more inclined to believe an eternal and infinite God exists because millions of people claim to have personal evidence of this God?

Which is more rational to believe based on the presented evidence?

If you don't view millions of testimonies as evidence then you're clearly being irrational. Sure millions of testimonies doesn't mean its true, but it at least means it's worth looking into as objectively as possible. If you have preconceived notions about God, then you can't be objective when discussing God.

If it is just personal testimony without any physical/tangible evidence to back it up it is worth little to me. Especially when it invokes the supernatural.

The fact that millions of people believe it does not sway me either.

 

[Chriliman]

Because reality exists and is demonstrable. To make certain assertions based on observable reality is entirely reasonable. I trust you see the difference between this scenario and eternal lepre... er, god/s, no?

Right, we make the assertion that the universe began because we observe that it has an apparent beginning. However, we currently can't explain why or how or for whom it began.

One explanation is that our universe is one of an infinite number of universes. Problem is this theory can't be verified as true because there are no other universes trying to contact us to let us know they exist.

Another explanation is that an eternal infinite God created the universe with the intent of revealing it's truth to us. In fact there is evidence that this God is revealing it's truth to humans.

Based on the above, which explanation is more reasonable to believe?

 

[HitchSlap]

Right, we make the assertion that the universe began because we observe that it has an apparent beginning. However, we currently can't explain why or how or for whom it began.

One explanation is that our universe is one of an infinite number of universes. Problem is this theory can't be verified as true because there are no other universes trying to contact us to let us know they exist.

Another explanation is that an eternal infinite God created the universe with the intent of revealing it's truth to us. In fact there is evidence that this God is revealing it's truth to humans.

Based on the above, which explanation is more reasonable to believe?

The most parsimonious answer is always the best.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Right, we make the assertion that the universe began because we observe that it has an apparent beginning. However, we currently can't explain why or how or for whom it began.

One explanation is that our universe is one of an infinite number of universes. Problem is this theory can't be verified as true because there are no other universes trying to contact us to let us know they exist.

Another explanation is that an eternal infinite God created the universe with the intent of revealing it's truth to us. In fact there is evidence that this God is revealing it's truth to humans.

Based on the above, which explanation is more reasonable to believe?

Your explanation doesn't actually explain anything. How do you think god created the universe?

 

[Chriliman]

Your explanation doesn't actually explain anything. How do you think god created the universe?

If you believe God created the universe the how he did it becomes irrelevant. Why he did it becomes relevant. One of the reasons why he created the universe might be to explain exactly how he created the universe. But if you don't believe in God then he can't explain anything directly to you, all your knowledge of God would come from finite sources, not the infinite eternal source.

 

[Hikarifuru]

Chriliman

Yes that person chose to kill their self... but they were not free to make any other choice but that one.

I understand our free will is not unlimited. We don't have free will to fly. Our free will is limited to right and wrong decisions which lead to consequences, like someone deciding to kill themselves leads to the consequence of them being dead. Someone deciding to help someone else leads to the consequence of them feeling better about themselves. The question is, why do we have free will to make right and wrong choices and who decides what is absolutely right and absolutely wrong?

Actually no... free will doesn't exist at all because you are not consciously FREE to control any of it. It's all being desired and determined before you are consciously aware of it. #neuroscience


What if you're thinking about good things like logic, reason and evidence and so forth in the wrong way? What if all good things in life do come from one infinite eternal source? What if everything we perceive as bad is a result of not knowing that infinite eternal source of all goodness? None of what I'm saying is illogical, it just requires an open mind to really think about the implications.

You provided that something is the source of logic thus cannot be evaluated or critiqued or proved by logic.... that undermines logic. You are arguing that logic can possibly be considered moot.. this is illogical.



Again, not if this eternal infinite being is perfect logic in of itself.

You have already established in your example that is being is outside of logic and that we cannot critique it.. not it is perfectly logical... a topic wouldn't be perfectly logical by definition just because the topic is something like heaven or divine power.

We humans do not have perfect logic, but does that fact mean perfect logic does not exist?

You did not claim that this being was logical, you claimed that our logic could not assess it because of its definition. Saying our logic is not logical also undermines logic itself.

You claim it's wrong, but you can't use logic to show that the existence of this being would be impossible. Why is that?

Actually I can and like I said in the beginning... the evidence is that it's entire concept undermines all the very principles of logic. You break the entire measuring system of world to fit your god in to it. You cannot evidence your god without removing logical rules... why is that? Because it isn't real and its very nature contradicts all that is real.

Here, you're implying the answer cannot be discovered.

Wrong. I said there is no guarantee of discovery.

Now your saying you're not implying anything could not be known. So which is it? Can everything that has meaning be known or not? This is the problem I run into with atheists, they just can't decide what they want to believe when it comes to answers about life. Inconsistent behavior can't be trusted.

You lack comprehension skills (the problem I find with theists).... I specifically said that there is an answer but that it is not guaranteed that it will be discovered.

Plus, I never said this being can't be known. I do in fact know this being to be God of all creation.

Earlier you did actually provide that we finite beings are in a place that cannot perceive the infinite being correctly. You've said that more than once/

No you do not know anything about this god and you can't even begin to evidence that and you are removing all logical rules from the conversation to accommodate it and saying that since this being is a GOD that it must be "logical" that he not need to fit into any logical rule or method.

Good! So stop relying on your finite self or any other finite being to provide the answer that are logically impossible for finite beings to answer.

No I will not stop using logic and reason and evidence and critical thinking skills just because there are things we do not an may not ever know. I will not abandon all things true for a fantasy just to bask in the light of a mysterious god and enjoy the euphoria of confusion that comes with adopting something that is by definition only beyond comprehension.

This is why wise humans seek a higher authority than themselves in order to find answers and clearly they do receive answers that allow them to be certain that this higher authority does in fact exist. This shows that where you go to seek answers can greatly affect what you believe to be true.

No that is not wise, insisting that a higher being exists in an effort to understand is stupidity and no it is not clear that they ever receive anything. The answers they receive are no more established that the source of those answers. Both are useless. The validity of these useless conclusions is based on an equally useless and invalid being. You NEED answers... so you're suspect.

Are you certain that when someone dies they don't receive the ultimate answer? This can't be proven either way so how could you be certain?

We know what happens when a person's brain is damaged, scientists do know that.... and we know what happens to our brains when we die, our bodies and brain rots. We as a person cease to exist. We go back to the way we were before we were born. We no longer exist.

 

[Davian]

...
. In fact there is evidence that this God is revealing it's truth to humans.
...

What is this "evidence"? Is it better than the evidence that extraterrestrial aliens are visiting Earth?

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you believe God created the universe the how he did it becomes irrelevant. Why he did it becomes relevant. One of the reasons why he created the universe might be to explain exactly how he created the universe. But if you don't believe in God then he can't explain anything directly to you, all your knowledge of God would come from finite sources, not the infinite eternal source.

Why would "how did god create the universe" become irrelevant?

It seems to me that question would become the most important question anyone could ask once they believe god created the universe.

Only by knowing "how" will we be able to compare god's method of universe creation with what we know about the beginning of the universe (if the universe had a beginning).