Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational
-
@petrapark3r said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
@Electrifying-Guy I appreciate your far ranging perspective. However I do not have the time to answer to all of this.
So I'll just say this: this was never a discussion about the bible.
Okay, I forget the whole Bible now
You made it that, and my main argument was purely philosophical and has nothing to do with the genesis.
Your philosophical argument was Cosmological argument or first cause inference
But there is a question for you.
Since I have disproved attributes of both Aquinas' God and Bible's God. This cosmological argument was given by Aquinis' God . So What kind of God you are believing in ?As I have proved he is imperfect, non-omnipotent, non-united, non-willing, partial.
That type of God is near to human in attributes.Whereas I have proved nature is impartial, transcendent immoral and eternal. You don't have any argument against it's any attribute.
That type of nature is not near to human in any attribute.Philosophically we have shown that God is irrational (just like any alternative
You want to say I should forget physics as well.
Okay I forgot Physics as well
Philosophy includes both perception and inference.
You cannot deny perception.
You cannot say philosophy doesn't include perception
Source- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_perceptionFive elements are either perceived and/or measurable
An inference assumes something in starting.
An inference is a conclusion drawn from observed or supposed facts. For example, if someone presses a light switch but the light does not turn on, they might infer that the filament has burnt out. However inferences may or may not be correct.
Five probabilities can be concluded from an inference.
In this context, perception is real more than inference.It makes no sense to try and reason about what he can and can't do, since it is impossible to understand Him. Just as meaningless is reasoning in a philosophical way about what attributes God has or hasn't. There is no basis for argument. This is why much of what Aquinas did in this direction was meaningless, and he called it that too, after he had his vision of God at the end of his life.
A dead philosopher will never come to tell what he has experienced after death
Materialism gave things existence? You mean the universe itself gave the chain its existence?
It gave bexause five elements have their own qualities.
A substance has its own quality
Water flows like water it never flows like air
Nobody can burn water
Hence self-cause nature is possible with this inference. -
@Electrifying-Guy said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
Your philosophical argument was Cosmological argument or first cause inference
Yes, it was a combination of the first-cause inference and the question of why there is anything.
Because everything in nature is the way it is for a reason. An apple falls down because of gravity. Quantum particles are generated out of "nothing" all the time for a reason (the nature of quantum mechanics). And all the laws of physics are also there because of how the universe began.
But there is a question for you.
Since I have disproved attributes of both Aquinas' God and Bible's God. This cosmological argument was given by Aquinis' God . So What kind of God you are believing in ?In contrast to a whole set of philosophers (like Aquinas) I believe it is utterly pointless to figure out God's attributes and reason about them. To me God is simply completely different from what we could ever think about Him. We just cannot rationally think about what He is.
I believe the only thing we can barely touch with our reason is the fact of His existence, which makes sense due to our existence.
As I have proved he is imperfect, non-omnipotent, non-united, non-willing, partial.
I think you haven't proven a thing, because that is completely impossible, since there is no way we could ever understand God. But that's just my opinion.
That type of God is near to human in attributes.
Whereas I have proved nature is impartial, transcendent immoral and eternal. You don't have any argument against it's any attribute.
Nature is not transcendent, since transcendent basically means, that something transcends nature. You have not proven that nature is eternal, because an eternal nature would be irrational and thus not provable (Just like God)
Philosophy includes both perception and inference.
You cannot deny perception.
You cannot say philosophy doesn't include perception
Source- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_perceptionFive elements are either perceived and/or measurable
I wish you would forget about those 5 elements, for fire is not an element but a chemical reaction, air is a gas made up from a bunch of molecules, earth is a huge set of molecules and elements, wood (if we are talking chinese) is a carbon based life-form, and water is a combination of two elements: oxygen and hydrogen. Basically this 5 element theory (like any 5 or 4 element theory) is BS. Inference gone wrong, nothing else but a good model for chinese medicin.
An inference assumes something in starting.
An inference is a conclusion drawn from observed or supposed facts. For example, if someone presses a light switch but the light does not turn on, they might infer that the filament has burnt out. However inferences may or may not be correct.
Five probabilities can be concluded from an inference.
In this context, perception is real more than inference.Perception is more direct than inference, not more real. What's real is objective wether we perceive or infer or don't know about it.
But I like your point about inference and the question wether we know enough about what we infer. This might be the only good argument I have heard so far against the cosmological way to God.
A dead philosopher will never come to tell what he has experienced after death
He had that vision before his death and told people about it...
Materialism gave things existence? You mean the universe itself gave the chain its existence?
It gave bexause five elements have their own qualities.
Five elements are not real...
A substance has its own quality
Water flows like water it never flows like airAll liquids flow like water.
Nobody can burn water
Hence self-cause nature is possible with this inference.Water doesn't cause itself. Neither does fire. Nothing in nature causes itself. Thus you cannot infere that. You have absolutely no basis to do so.
-
@Anastasia-Smith wow
-
This post is deleted! -
@petrapark3r if you want to chat with girls join here Click here-->https://yarichat.blogspot.com/
-
if you want to chat with girls join here Click here-->https://yarichat.blogspot.com/
-
@petrapark3r atheism is for those who believe that science is a panacea that can answer all the questions in the universe. However, in reality, science has limitations and this is where religion comes in.
-
@JessicaLou said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
@petrapark3r atheism is for those who believe that science is a panacea that can answer all the question in the universe. However, in reality, science has limitation and this is where religion comes in.
Indeed, but the question is how can you get to truth? In other words: how do you use the religious tools to gain objectivity?
Science drives to find what's objectively true about nature. Religion should drive to find what's objectively true in the transcendent.
But instead they tend to fight against each other, because most of them have no method of validating their claims. What do you think?
-
@petrapark3r said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
@Electrifying-Guy said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
Your philosophical argument was Cosmological argument or first cause inference
Yes, it was a combination of the first-cause inference and the question of why there is anything.
Because everything in nature is the way it is for a reason. An apple falls down because of gravity. Quantum particles are generated out of "nothing" all the time for a reason (the nature of quantum mechanics). And all the laws of physics are also there because of how the universe began.
Gravity is natural law
It could all just be the result of "accidents" exploited by the relentless regularities of nature.
Benedict spinoza in the 17th century, identified God and nature, arguing that scientific research was the true path of theology. For this heresy he was persecuted. There is a troubling Janus-faced quality to Spinozas heretical vision of Deus sive Natura: in proposing his scientific simplification, was he personifying nature or depersonalising god ?
Darwins more generative vision provides the structure in which we can see the intelligence of Mother nature (or is it merely apparent intelligence? ) as a non-miraculous and non-mysterious --and hence all more wonderful-- feature of this self-creating thing.Should Spinoza be counted as an atheist or a pantheist ? He saw the glory of nature and then saw a way of eliminating the middle-man.
I know science has already disproved old 5 elements
Nature is more than those five elementsBut there is a question for you.
Since I have disproved attributes of both Aquinas' God and Bible's God. This cosmological argument was given by Aquinis' God . So What kind of God you are believing in ?In contrast to a whole set of philosophers (like Aquinas) I believe it is utterly pointless to figure out God's attributes and reason about them. To me God is simply completely different from what we could ever think about Him. We just cannot rationally think about what He is.
I believe the only thing we can barely touch with our reason is the fact of His existence, which makes sense due to our existence.
As I have proved he is imperfect, non-omnipotent, non-united, non-willing, partial.
I think you haven't proven a thing, because that is completely impossible, since there is no way we could ever understand God. But that's just my opinion.
That type of God is near to human in attributes.
Whereas I have proved nature is impartial, transcendent immoral and eternal. You don't have any argument against it's any attribute.
Nature is not transcendent, since transcendent basically means, that something transcends nature.
You had misread it. I wrote transcendent immorality. A comma was not between both words
Nature is dead to human values
For an example sun lights on everyone either he is sinful or goodYou have not proven that nature is eternal, because an
eternal nature would be irrational and thus not provable (Just like God)
Philosophy includes both perception and inference.
You cannot deny perception.
You cannot say philosophy doesn't include perception
Source- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_perceptionFive elements are either perceived and/or measurable
I wish you would forget about those 5 elements, for fire is not an element but a chemical reaction, air is a gas made up from a bunch of molecules, earth is a huge set of molecules and elements, wood (if we are talking chinese) is a carbon based life-form, and water is a combination of two elements: oxygen and hydrogen. Basically this 5 element theory (like any 5 or 4 element theory) is BS. Inference gone wrong, nothing else but a good model for chinese medicin.
An inference assumes something in starting.
An inference is a conclusion drawn from observed or supposed facts. For example, if someone presses a light switch but the light does not turn on, they might infer that the filament has burnt out. However inferences may or may not be correct.
Five probabilities can be concluded from an inference.
In this context, perception is real more than inference.Perception is more direct than inference, not more real. What's real is objective wether we perceive or infer or don't know about it.
Yes direct, not real
But I like your point about inference and the question wether we know enough about what we infer. This might be the only good argument I have heard so far against the cosmological way to God.
A dead philosopher will never come to tell what he has experienced after death
He had that vision before his death and told people about it...
Personal experiences are vary to each-other. They are not reliable
For an example- an eastern philosopher Gautama Buddha got liberation in the age of 35. He shared his personal experience to people without believing in God and disproving fatalism. He believed in free will and in making our own effortsMaterialism gave things existence? You mean the universe itself gave the chain its existence?
It gave bexause five elements have their own qualities.
Five elements are not real...
A substance has its own quality
Water flows like water it never flows like airAll liquids flow like water.
I was comparing five elements with one-another
Other liquids are not elements
Air is not liquid
Fire is that part of Nature that transforms one state of matter into another. For example, fire transforms the solid state of water (ice) into liquid water and then into its gaseous state (steam) -
@Electrifying-Guy said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
Gravity is natural law
It could all just be the result of "accidents" exploited by the relentless regularities of nature.The point is the regularities. Everything happens for a reason. Evolution happens because certain traits favor survival. There is a reason to why everything works the way it does. There is a reason for why gravity is as strong as it is (scientists traced this back to the conditions in the big bang). There is a reason for why there is gravity. There is a reason for everything in nature.
Benedict spinoza in the 17th century, identified God and nature, arguing that scientific research was the true path of theology. For this heresy he was persecuted. There is a troubling Janus-faced quality to Spinozas heretical vision of Deus sive Natura: in proposing his scientific simplification, was he personifying nature or depersonalising god ?
I cannot answer this question for I do not know Spinoza well enough. But he clearly was wrong about claiming that scientific research could lead you to God :shrug:
Darwins more generative vision provides the structure in which we can see the intelligence of Mother nature (or is it merely apparent intelligence? ) as a non-miraculous and non-mysterious --and hence all more wonderful-- feature of this self-creating thing.
There is a big difference between developing (which is what nature does) and creating itself (which is nothing that has ever been observed in nature).
Should Spinoza be counted as an atheist or a pantheist ? He saw the glory of nature and then saw a way of eliminating the middle-man.
Since he thought he could arrive at God, he was certainly not an atheist. But again, I don't know him well enough to tell you wether he was a pantheist or believed in a God that was just a part of nature...
I know science has already disproved old 5 elements
Nature is more than those five elementsGood we agree on this.
You had misread it. I wrote transcendent immorality. A comma was not between both words
Nature is dead to human values
For an example sun lights on everyone either he is sinful or goodOh, okay, yeah, I misread that. I'd still say that the immorality of nature is not transcendent though. Nature is just simply non-moral (I agree with you on this).
Personal experiences are vary to each-other. They are not reliable
For an example- an eastern philosopher Gautama Buddha got liberation in the age of 35. He shared his personal experience to people without believing in God and disproving fatalism. He believed in free will and in making our own effortsI was just saying that Aquinas did agree in the end with this whole argument about the attributes of God being "like straw" (pointless), because of his experience. I wasn't argueing wether his experience was real or not.
I was comparing five elements with one-another
Other liquids are not elementsWater is not an element either :smirk:
Air is not liquid
Fire is that part of Nature that transforms one state of matter into another. For example, fire transforms the solid state of water (ice) into liquid water and then into its gaseous state (steam)Agreed.
-
@petrapark3r I think we can only achieve the truth in time. Science is still in its infancy. We have not yet explored the vast universe.
If Darwin's theory of evolution is true, then we are not alone in this universe.
Actually, we should storm Area 51 on September to know whether aliens exist.Meanwhile, I believe that while science can not yet answer the profundities of life and its precise origin, we should believe the notion of having a supreme being that created us.
-
@LeoWeirdo said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
@petrapark3r I think we can only achieve the truth in time. Science is still in its infancy. We have not yet explored the vast universe.
That's true.
If Darwin's theory of evolution is true, then we are not alone in this universe.
Actually, we should storm Area 51 on September to know whether aliens exist.That is not so sure, because darwins theory does not explain how life started, only how it developed. For life has always been incredibly complex (DNA is 3 meters long), at least that's as far as science has gotten by now.
Also we have not enough information to conclude how propable life is (assuming it can appear just by itself).
Meanwhile, I believe that while science can not yet answer the profundities of life and its precise origin, we should believe the notion of having a supreme being that created us.
It certainly makes sense to our minds (but God himself is non the less not rationally understandable)... And I do believe.
-
@pe7erpark3r said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
@Electrifying-Guy said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
Gravity is natural law
It could all just be the result of "accidents" exploited by the relentless regularities of nature.The point is the regularities. Everything happens for a reason. Evolution happens because certain traits favor survival. There is a reason to why everything works the way it does.
Where is cause there is effect
Where is not cause there is not effect
This is an inference and it is not as direct as perception which I brought up earlier.
An inference may be true or not. Even though it can have more probabilitiesThere is a reason for why gravity is as strong as it is (scientists traced this back to the conditions in the big bang). There is a reason for why there is gravity. There is a reason for everything in nature.
Good one
Law of gravity was in Bigbang
You cannot create or destroy matter or energy in a lab like those 5 old elements, this is what first law of thermodynamics says
My perception is clearly agree with this physical or natural law
Some scientists still believe Law of thermodynamics would not come in bigbang theory and just because it addresses the evolution of Universe, not creation.
Source- https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang.htmlThus this debate ends here
World is clearly rational but God is irrational -
@Electrifying-Guy said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
@pe7erpark3r said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
@Electrifying-Guy said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
Gravity is natural law
It could all just be the result of "accidents" exploited by the relentless regularities of nature.The point is the regularities. Everything happens for a reason. Evolution happens because certain traits favor survival. There is a reason to why everything works the way it does.
Where is cause there is effect
Where is not cause there is not effect
This is an inference and it is not as direct as perception which I brought up earlier.
An inference may be true or not. Even though it can have more probabilitiesTrue. And in the quantum world there seems to effect without cause. However we don't understand the quantum world yet. But even if there were effects without causes, the effects are regular. Not just anything happens. Something specific happens all the time. There is a reason to why it happens, even if there might be no cause.
There is a reason for why gravity is as strong as it is (scientists traced this back to the conditions in the big bang). There is a reason for why there is gravity. There is a reason for everything in nature.
Good one
Law of gravity was in Bigbang
You cannot create or destroy matter or energy in a lab like those 5 old elements, this is what first law of thermodynamics says
My perception is clearly agree with this physical or natural lawAgreed.
Some scientists still believe Law of thermodynamics would not come in bigbang theory and just because it address the evolution of Universe, not creation.
Source- https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang.htmlInteresting article!
-
@LeoWeirdo said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
@petrapark3r atheism is for those who believe that science is a panacea that can answer all the questions in the universe. However, in reality, science has limitations and this is where religion comes in.
Do you really think God will create or destroy matter/energy ?
Religion was made by some smart people for controlling the population. Watch Zeitgeist
Bible was made by a human not by a deist entity. Do you even know how much Bible is contradictory to Science ?- Bible says the sky is blue when in actual fact the colour of the sky is a reflection of the ocean. The sky itself has no colour.
- The bible does not even mention that the sun has a limited lifespan and that it too will eventually die out as it runs out of fuel.
- Much through biblical times it was though that the sun rotates around the earth, when in actual fact the solar system is helio-centric: i.e. the earth rotates around the sun
- The existence of microscopic organisms including bacteria and viruses. Note the bibles only mentions beasts and fowls that god created.
These were some examples. I could write more contradictory things but It will take my time
@LeoWeirdo said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
@petrapark3r I think we can only achieve the truth in time. Science is still in its infancy. We have not yet explored the vast universe.
If Darwin's theory of evolution is true, then we are not alone in this universe.
Actually, we should storm Area 51 on September to know whether aliens exist.Myths will always be myths
There is not a UFO
It is actually the semi-secret contract commuter airline which is using the call-sign "Janet" that transports workers from Las Vegas's McCarran Airport to the base.Meanwhile, I believe that while science can not yet answer the profundities of life and its precise origin, we should believe the notion of having a supreme being that created us.
It meant you will believe in an unseen and unheard notion.
By the way the guy who wrote this thread had an argument of first cause. If God I created this world then the God II will create him, God III will create God II and so on. Which God is real and which is not ?
Whereas energy is real and self-caused. You or your god cannot create it. (First law of thermodynamics )@spaceboy said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
One scientist was asked a question:
- Is science and faith are linked with each other?
- Yes of course! - the scientist answered.
- Do you believe in God?
- No..
- But how?! You just said that science and faith are linked?- Many scientist of different epochs were religious. This single fact is enough to prove that faith and science are linked.
Many theists are raised from their instincts
No. of atheist scientists > no. of theist scientists
Check both links very well
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technologyAtheism is also some kind of faith, in my point of view. To prove the God's existence or not existence, we need to visit each corner of the universe in different dimensions (and even this wouldn't be enough). So the only thing we have to do in this case - is to choose by ourselves to believe or not.
Atheism has two definitions
- There is no god, this definition is not based on faith. Will you call Bertrand Russell's atheism was based on his faith ? Apparently his all counterarguments for five proofs for god's existence were logical and valid.
- Lack of belief in god. Yes it is based on faith. This definition is psychological state of mind
-
@Electrifying-Guy said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
Atheism has two definitions
There is no god, this definition is not based on faith. Will you call Bertrand Russell's atheism was based on his faith ? Apparently his all counterarguments for five proofs for god's existence were logical and valid.
The following are his arguments. (https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/why-bertrand-russell-was-not-a-christian.)
The first cause argument
This argument is simple; it maintains that since everything must have a cause, there must be a first cause to start everything else. This first cause is God and is exempted from needing a cause itself. Russell points out that if we can decide that one thing doesn’t need a cause, we have no reason not to say the world itself wasn’t the thing without a cause.
This one is true. But it does not disprove God. It just states that the world could also be without reason. As I tried to show however this gives the world some irrational properties. Still Russels argument holds true.
The natural law argument:
This one centers on the idea that the laws of physics needed to be set. It then assumes that the being who determined them was God. Russell finds this one to be outdated given advances in physics since the days of Newton, particularly in quantum mechanics. Since atomic physics is more statistical than classical, Russell contends that it seems odd to claim that an intelligence is involved in physics. Saying:
“There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as evidence that the fall of the dice is regulated by design.”
As with dice rolls, so with reality, he argues.This can be countered by the fact, that even though things happen without a cause they don't happen without a reason. It's the same kind of thing that happens over and over again: quantum particles appear out of nothing, with an opposite charge / opposite spin. It is a zero-sum game, but it is a regular one.
The argument from design:
This perennial favorite argues that lifeforms are so well suited to their environments that a designer must have been involved. Russell dismisses this as absurd. He not only notes that Darwin explains the observed facts better through evolutionary theory but also points out how terrible some of the design choices are if they were, in fact, choices. He asks the audience:
“Do you think that, if you were given millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?”
He shouldn't have used people for his argument there, since theists claim that people have free choice, and that therefore evil cannot be blamed on God.
But he is right about the physical world not being perfect. This is a good argument. But you still have the choice of finding it truly convincing, since you cannot claim to know why God might have made the world in this way.
After looking at a few others, he concludes that the arguments for the existence of a God are all lacking in rigor. Since Russell, famously, held that the burden of proof is on the person making a claim, the failure of these proofs leaves him with no reason to assume God’s existence.
This one is the actual crux, and its not even a bad one: "Since you claim that there is God and you cannot prove his existence, I have no reason to believe you." Thus it is not unfair to call not believing an God a rational choice.
However it is also true, that God is not disprovable, and that there are questions that must forever remain unanswered about the origin of the universe (and other things). So it is not unfair either to call not believing in God a form of faith.
Lack of belief in god. Yes it is based on faith. This definition is psychological state of mind
All kinds of convictions have a psychological aspect. Logic itself is based on improvable axioms. So I'd say you are both right.
-
Atheism assumes that God is not real, and claims to be entirely rational. But that second part about, being entirely rational, can be proven to be wrong
I think the the way we humans try to explain the god's existance or absence is purely rational. Altough it doesn't mean the way we feel about It (faith) is rational or can even be explained. As an excuse, i'd say it is part of a complex algorithmic system (genome, culture, education...)
Some scientest might throw in, that the universe itself might be a fluctuation of a quantum field, or simply one of many universes popping out of whatever they pop
And of course they could be right, and of course my question to them remains the same: Then did this something that the universe popped out of just suddenly pop into existence? Of course not, that wouldn't make any sense either.
Of course nothing popps out of the void, that's why some scientists have been, for years, trying to find new particles amongst this void, whose been told there were absolutely no matter in. New fundamental particles were discovered here, in CERN and other particles accelarators.
Then this must mean, that this nature (or space or quantum field or whatever unfathomable thing the universe popped out of) has always been there, has always existed, eternally. Existence itself must be eternal then, if it wasn't created by an eternal God. Think it through well. There is no third option, so much is for sure...
Agree.
Now lets construct an example, that is able to make us see the problem here properly: Imagine you borrowed a bike from your friend. And this friend had borrowed it from another friend. And this guy again borrowed it. And so on and so forth. The bike was given from one person to the next. Reaching back through history, through time.
So since the universe is eternal (and the bike symbolizes existence itself), this chain stretches into the past, without end... It is equally eternal. Now, answer this question: Why is there a bike? How can it always be borrowed, if there is no original owner?
Well said "in our rational mind", but to any other mind, the existence of this bike, in the first place, can have a purpose to exist and its appearance can be justified, not only by our little minds. Finally, adding your whole argument with the classic complex algorithmic system, which I referred at the beggining, it fits as a glove to prove atheism is indeed irrational.
Someone who you will remember.
-
@pe7erpark3r said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
@Electrifying-Guy said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
Atheism has two definitions
There is no god, this definition is not based on faith. Will you call Bertrand Russell's atheism was based on his faith ? Apparently his all counterarguments for five proofs for god's existence were logical and valid.
The following are his arguments. (https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/why-bertrand-russell-was-not-a-christian.)
The first cause argument
This argument is simple; it maintains that since everything must have a cause, there must be a first cause to start everything else. This first cause is God and is exempted from needing a cause itself. Russell points out that if we can decide that one thing doesn’t need a cause, we have no reason not to say the world itself wasn’t the thing without a cause.
This one is true. But it does not disprove God. It just states that the world could also be without reason. As I tried to show however this gives the world some irrational properties. Still Russels argument holds true.
You misinterpreted him about disproving the God or you did not read about this argument.
In his own words, ''My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.''He clearly wrote the fallacy of first cause. As I have said, God II will make God I and God III will make God II and so on. God too should have a cause So, fallacy is itself in this argument
The natural law argument:
This one centers on the idea that the laws of physics needed to be set. It then assumes that the being who determined them was God. Russell finds this one to be outdated given advances in physics since the days of Newton, particularly in quantum mechanics. Since atomic physics is more statistical than classical, Russell contends that it seems odd to claim that an intelligence is involved in physics. Saying:
“There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as evidence that the fall of the dice is regulated by design.”
As with dice rolls, so with reality, he argues.This can be countered by the fact, that even though things happen without a cause they don't happen without a reason. It's the same kind of thing that happens over and over again: quantum particles appear out of nothing, with an opposite charge / opposite spin. It is a zero-sum game, but it is a regular one.
In his own words, ''natural laws are a description of how things do in fact behave, and being a mere description of what they in fact do, you cannot argue that there must be somebody who told them to do that, because even supposing that there were, you are then faced with the question "Why did God issue just those natural laws
and no others?" If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted. If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others -- the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it -- if there were a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary. You really have a law outside and anterior to the divine edicts, and God does not serve your purpose, because he is not the ultimate lawgiver. In short, this whole argument about natural law no longer has anything like the strength that it used to have.He was talking about probability of double sixes for designer which is 1/36.
As we have seen an inference is not direct like perception and natural laws are self-caused
The argument from design:
This perennial favorite argues that lifeforms are so well suited to their environments that a designer must have been involved. Russell dismisses this as absurd. He not only notes that Darwin explains the observed facts better through evolutionary theory but also points out how terrible some of the design choices are if they were, in fact, choices. He asks the audience:
“Do you think that, if you were given millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?”
He shouldn't have used people for his argument there, since theists claim that people have free choice, and that therefore evil cannot be blamed on God.
And free will is against man is made in the image of god verse. Do not forget that
But he is right about the physical world not being perfect. This is a good argument. But you still have the choice of finding it truly convincing, since you cannot claim to know why God might have made the world in this way.
After looking at a few others, he concludes that the arguments for the existence of a God are all lacking in rigor. Since Russell, famously, held that the burden of proof is on the person making a claim, the failure of these proofs leaves him with no reason to assume God’s existence.
This one is the actual crux, and its not even a bad one: "Since you claim that there is God and you cannot prove his existence, I have no reason to believe you." Thus it is not unfair to call not believing an God a rational choice.
In his own words, ''Here we find in this world a great deal of injustice, and so far as that goes that is a reason for supposing that justice does not rule in the world; and therefore so far as it goes it affords a moral argument against deity and not in favor of one.''
He was talking about the faith of theism. How they consider God as a justice of the world without even any weak argument.However it is also true, that God is not disprovable,
God is disprovable because first cause argument is defective
and that there are questions that must forever remain unanswered about the origin of the universe (and other things). So it is not unfair either to call not believing in God a form of faith.
I gave you some links for agnosticism atheism. Check the link again. You cannot say former definition is based on faith
Also whatever source are you reading from, is not reliable and it consists of some uncomprehending arguments
http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/Russell,Bertrand/Religion/Bertrand Russell - Why I am not a Christian.pdf
Check this out. It is pdf of his essay 'why I'm not a Christian'Lack of belief in god. Yes it is based on faith. This definition is based on psychological state of mind
All kinds of convictions have a psychological aspect.
A coin is tossed
2 results may come out - head or tail
Elaborate how it is a psychological aspect.Logic itself is based on improvable axioms. So I'd say you are both right.
-
@davitchen said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
Atheism assumes that God is not real, and claims to be entirely rational. But that second part about, being entirely rational, can be proven to be wrong
I think the the way we humans try to explain the god's existance or absence is purely rational.
Absence is rational
Existence is irrational
He is not perceived how existence is rational ?Altough it doesn't mean the way we feel about It (faith) is rational
I agree with you
As an excuse, i'd say it is part of a complex algorithmic system (genome, culture, education...)Genome,culture and education are distinct to one-another
Some scientest might throw in, that the universe itself might be a fluctuation of a quantum field, or simply one of many universes popping out of whatever they pop
And of course they could be right, and of course my question to them remains the same: Then did this something that the universe popped out of just suddenly pop into existence? Of course not, that wouldn't make any sense either.
Of course nothing popps out of the void, that's why some scientists have been, for years, trying to find new particles amongst this void, whose been told there were absolutely no matter in. New fundamental particles were discovered here, in CERN and other particles accelarators.
If you are talking about Bigbang. Lemme elaborate you. Bigbang is a theory which addresses the evolution of universe, it does not address how universe came into existence
Then this must mean, that this nature (or space or quantum field or whatever unfathomable thing the universe popped out of) has always been there, has always existed, eternally. Existence itself must be eternal then, if it wasn't created by an eternal God. Think it through well. There is no third option, so much is for sure...
Agree.
Now lets construct an example, that is able to make us see the problem here properly: Imagine you borrowed a bike from your friend. And this friend had borrowed it from another friend. And this guy again borrowed it. And so on and so forth. The bike was given from one person to the next. Reaching back through history, through time.
So since the universe is eternal (and the bike symbolizes existence itself), this chain stretches into the past, without end... It is equally eternal. Now, answer this question: Why is there a bike? How can it always be borrowed, if there is no original owner?
Well said "in our rational mind", but to any other mind, the existence of this bike, in the first place, can have a purpose to exist and its appearance can be justified, not only by our little minds.
You first said faith is irrational
'By our limited mind' you meant we cannot know so we imagined
In Einstein words, ''Logic takes you from A to B but imagination takes you everywhere''
E.g. I cannot see second side of my house's wall. I will imagine someone is sitting there, how is it rational ? This is your psychology that someone is sitting there
Here I would say theism is irrational
However you could think in another way, there may be anyone or not, it may lead you to two results- Someone is not there
- Someone is there
This is rational and logic
Particles arise from nothing (we have scientific evidences) -rational
God arises from nothing (we don't have any scientific evidence) -irrational
We cannot know
He is far from us
We are limited he is unlimited
These are not even weak arguments to prove his existence
Just imagine you have a girlfriend in your dreams. You know the truth when you open your eyes
Avoiding sensual perceptions and imagining an entity is irrational -
This post is deleted!
