Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Can you provide an example of incorrect logic? (...aside from wrong premise, which is a fault in fact, and not really a fault in logic.)A devout Christian myself, I would think Satan would have a "logical" argument against the existence of God. Not all logic is correct, and not everything that makes sense is correct, but it can still be logical.
Very very true.The problem is that an arbitrary "god" is often an abstract and ill-defined concept to begin with. Unless you define what you are asserting exists, then it's hard to argue against it.
Something of a nature not bound by space time. Obviously something that isn't physical.In the absence of space-time how could something exist?
Everything in the physical universe is subject to time.. so it logically appears created. So if this universe has an age that isn't eternal then an outer force that isn't subject to time appears to have created our universe.
The universe shows signs of an age. It's showing forward progression of physical objects.. it shows time. It would require a starting point to act as a reference point to another point in time.
It is because they have taken a position just as much as the theist has. Both have taken a position. They say No ..we say Yes.Empirically speaking, it's not their job to prove the non-existence of anything in a proper debate.
Very very true.
Before I would ever argue with anyone about the existence of God.. I would ask them to define "God"..
My definition of God is "The Intelligent Force that everything extends from" ..
So I don't see why atheist have a problem with theism.. it's almost like religion has tainted the image of God in the minds of many people.
Something of a nature not bound by space time. Obviously something that isn't physical.
But that would imply "something from nothing". Which I think isn't a logical approach.And that starting point would be the Big Bang -- the beginning of the current phase in the eternal cycle.
Atheists, generally, do not assert that there is no god. You might want to say you are looking for responses from, specifically, Gnostic Atheists.Can any atheist provide a logical argument that supports your belief that there is no God?
Not that the religious ideas of God. But that there is no God that designed the universe and created life purposefully.
I've seen that most atheist generally attack religion and ask for empirical evidence that shows God exists.. but I have never heard a logical argument against the existence of God ( not religion).
Thoughts and thanks
Incorrect logic example. "Dogs bark. Seals bark. Therefore seals must be dogs." Incorrect logic would be something that is illogical.Can you provide an example of incorrect logic? (...aside from wrong premise, which is a fault in fact, and not really a fault in logic.)
I would say the theoristic Big Bang (a bang I don't believe in) would be the beginning of time or the universe, because what ever supposedly went "bang" would have been in existence in time and space before it went "bang."And that starting point would be the Big Bang -- the beginning of the current phase in the eternal cycle.
Right, of course.Incorrect logic example. "Dogs bark. Seals bark. Therefore seals must be dogs." Incorrect logic would be something that is illogical.
I would suggest that energy is, in a sense, the essence of the physical, and it's bound by our universe because the universe is a collection of different forms of energy.Energy isn't physical (in terms of physical form), but it's still bound by our universe as we know it.
Let's see if this is applicable. Say a person wants to believe in the erroneous concept of reincarnation. They go to a show and see a hypnotist put somebody under hypnosis. While under hypnosis that person, who is proven to be honest and not knowingly under any planned ploy of deception, tells the audience they know no other language but English. The hypnotist now tells them that they are going to take them back to the memory of a "previous life" they lived while in ancient Egypt. The "subject" then shows they can speak in an Egyptian language under these circumstances of hypnosis. The person that wants to believe in reincarnation, now logically comes to this conclusion, having seen it demonstrated in this way, and not being able to explain it any other way. It makes sense, and it is logical. I would suggest another explanation. The person under hypnosis, for this particular occasion, and for my own explanation, is temporarily possessed by a deceiving spirit, a demon, that makes it look like this person knows this ancient language, and that the reason is because they really did know it in a previous lifetime. Rather than get off topic, I am stopping here, hoping that this is an acceptable example of logic coming to an incorrect conclusion.Right, of course.
I meant something that IS logical but incorrect (assuming true premises). I thought you were pointing to a problem with logic itself.
Most atheists, including myself, are agnostic, not gnostic. We don't firmly believe that deities don't exist, but rather we lack faith in their existence due to a lack of evidence that they do exist.Can any atheist provide a logical argument that supports your belief that there is no God?
Again, the problem is that I don't believe in said being due to the lack of evidence that it exists.Not that the religious ideas of God. But that there is no God that designed the universe and created life purposefully.
Ever heard the phrase "you can't prove a negative"? It applies here. I, nor anyone else, can disprove the existence of deities... or unicorns... or one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eaters. Why would you believe any of those things exist without evidence for their existence?I've seen that most atheist generally attack religion and ask for empirical evidence that shows God exists.. but I have never heard a logical argument against the existence of God ( not religion).
That's not what the big bang theory actually says.I would say the theoristic Big Bang (a bang I don't believe in) would be the beginning of time or the universe, because what ever supposedly went "bang" would have been in existence in time and space before it went "bang."
-_- not really. Like I said, most atheists are agnostic as well, so theists are saying "yes" and atheists are saying "I don't know, but there isn't enough evidence for me to conclude "yes"".It is because they have taken a position just as much as the theist has. Both have taken a position.
No, it really isn't. It's a rule that the person making the POSITIVE claim is the one that has to back it up, because the position of the negative claim is the null hypothesis. The function of a null hypothesis is thus: if the evidence doesn't support the original hypothesis or there isn't any, the null hypothesis is the default conclusion to make.Trying to put the weight of the argument on the person that says yes is intellectually dishonest.
Agnosticism is a knowledge statement, and atheism is a belief statement. Thus, as an agnostic atheist, I would say "I don't know if deities exist or not, but due to the lack of evidence, I don't believe in any deities".If you don't know.. then the proper stance is you don't know... not "No/Atheism".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?