@somebody1233
you just wrote the emotions 👌
Thank you for posting here
"Work in the silence,
Only my presence,
Fool proof perseverance,
Next time the fear will hide."
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.
-
@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! -
@Sij said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
We cannot even prove the existence of this universe and the world we see and feel, let alone proving the existence of god.
Hehe :joy:. Yap.
-
@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:
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
I find the part of the argument I copied from that website is less flawed.
Why should God need a cause, when nature does not need a cause?
In other words: you have to excempt something from having a cause, wether that is God or nature.
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
Natural laws are not self-caused (gravity does not cause gravity, it causes things to fall down) and thus you cannot have shown that they are self-caused.
Asking yourself why God has put certain laws in place is nonsense, since (if He exists) you cannot possibly understand God's reasoning.
The version of the argument I copied from the website is thus less flawed, since it simply states that the fact that physics itself could be random, one does not need God. That would would be true, if physics was truly random. But the scientific truth is: we don't know if it is. (By this I mean, we simply don't know [yet] if the laws of physics are the way the are in our universe because of chance).
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
Why would free will be against the idea of humans being made in the image of God? God – if He exists – has ultimate freedom, He just simply is the definition of Good Himself. We obviously don't have ultimate freedom, like an image could never be the same as the original, but free will, to decide between doing good and doing bad, could indeed be called an image of the ultimate freedom.
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.This is a "new" argument, that wasn't on my list. The argument makes sense. However it requires you again to reason about God's reasoning, which – in case He exists – is not something that we could possibly do and arrive at the truth...
However it is also true, that God is not disprovable,
God is disprovable because first cause argument is defective
As shown above, you have to excempt something from the first-cause argument, wether that is God or nature. And since you have to do this you cannot say that the argument is flawed "because God must be caused".
And even if you had shown that the problem with the first-cause argument was in fact conclusive: proving an argument wrong, does not prove its result wrong.
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 argumentsRussels notion is, that since there is no proof of God, it is rational to assume that God is not. This argument is indeed rational.
Since assuming that God does not exist requires you to excempt nature from the first-cause argument (it puts nature in the place of God, it does not solve the problem) you are presented with a question that you cannot solve. Thus assuming that God does not exist requires you to be at least a bit irrational about how you think of nature, as I have shown in the topic.
It is also true, that since there is no disproof of God, and quite a bit of evidence of things He does (however inconclusive), it is also rational to assume that God is.
So I would say it is fair to call atheism a belief, just as it is fair to call not believing in God rational.
These are the arguments in their entirety (including the first post = the topic itself). No further source needed.
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'This is a genius lecture about Russels reasons for being an atheist no doubt. However a lot of things are a bit dated. For example he calls it very doubtful wether christ was a historic figure. This was written in a time, when a lot of arguments had been presented that made christs historicity doubtful. But we have progressed a lot since then, and many of the arguments have been successfully refuted.
I can see now, where you have your arguments from. Very interesting read. Don't take these things as facts though. Natural science and science of history have progressed quite a bit since it was written.
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."All kinds of" is an idiom. It does not have to mean "all", it usually means "many". This was just a side note of little importance, please forget about it.
-
@pe7erpark3r said in [Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational](/post/252836): > @Electrifying-Guy said in [Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational](/post/252573): > > @pe7erpark3r said in [Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational](/post/252470): > > > @Electrifying-Guy said in [Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational](/post/252331): > > > > 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 > > I find the part of the argument I copied from that website is less flawed. > > Why should God _need_ a cause, when nature does _not need_ a cause? > > In other words: you _have to_ excempt _something_ from having a cause, wether that is God or nature. > I agree but we have seen how matter is self-cause whereas God is not > > > > 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 > > Natural laws are not self-caused (gravity does not cause gravity, it causes things to fall down) and thus you cannot have shown that they are self-caused. > Did you just forget first law of thermodynamics ? Do you really think an imagining entity will cause apple to fall on ground ? E.g. I throw a stone and apple falls on ground Explain me what causes apple to fall on ground ? Also explain me how an imaging entity can create energy ? For first (law of gravity) he should have limbs to do that For second which is already self cause makes him already irrational > Asking yourself why God has put certain laws in place is nonsense, since (if He exists) you cannot possibly understand God's reasoning. > 'You cannot know' is not an argument to believe in something who is beyond our perception > The version of the argument I copied from the website is thus less flawed, since it simply states that the fact that physics itself could be random, one does not need God. That would would be true, if physics was truly random. But the scientific truth is: we don't know if it is. (By this I mean, we simply don't know [yet] if the laws of physics are the way the are in our universe because of chance). > A kind of agree > > > > 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 > > Why would free will be against the idea of humans being made in the image of God? God – if He exists – has ultimate freedom, He just simply is the definition of Good Himself. We obviously don't have ultimate freedom, like an image could never be the same as the original, but free will, to decide between doing good and doing bad, could indeed be called an image of the ultimate freedom. > I was reading interpretion of bible from some website, Your interpretation is very different to that one so it is not my mistake :( Also, he will send me in hell if I do some sins. I will not do those sins because I'm afraid of going to hell. Isn't it against free will ? Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able ? Then he is not omnipotent Is he able, but not willing ? Then he is malevolent Is he both able and willing ? Then whence cometh evil ? Is he neither able nor willing ? Then why call him 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. > > > 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. > > This is a "new" argument, that wasn't on my list. The argument makes sense. However it requires you again to reason about God's reasoning, which – in case He exists – is not something that we could possibly do and arrive at the truth... > > > > > However it is also true, that God is not disprovable, > > > > God is disprovable because first cause argument is defective > > As shown above, you have to exempt something from the first-cause argument, whether that is God or nature. And since you _have to do this_ you cannot say that the argument is flawed "because God must be caused". > > And even if you had shown that the problem with the first-cause argument was in fact conclusive: proving an argument wrong, does not prove its result wrong. > When cause aka god itself is doubtful its effect will also be doubtful its result will also be doubtful Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder? Do you know of any painting that didn't have a painter? Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker? If you answered YES for any of the above, give details > > > 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 > > Russels notion is, that since there is no proof of God, it is rational to assume that God is not. This argument is indeed rational. > > Since assuming that God does not exist requires you to excempt nature from the first-cause argument (it puts nature in the place of God, it does not solve the problem) you are presented with a question that you cannot solve. Thus assuming that God does not exist requires you to be at least a bit irrational about how you think of nature, as I have shown in the topic. > If i did put nature in the first cause it would be the the most rational argument for disproving the God. Because energy or matter is not created or destroyed by anyone. Nobody could cause it. It would be itself cause . > It is also true, that since there is no disproof of God, and quite a bit of evidence of things He does (however inconclusive), it is also rational to assume that God is. > > So I would say it is fair to call atheism a belief, just as it is fair to call not believing in God rational. > > These are the arguments in their entirety (including the first post = the topic itself). No further source needed. Whatever you would say will be not a fact. Facts are always different from opinions You don't want to read source because you are either lazy or you have just a mindset Read both definitions from here https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ > These are the arguments in their entirety (including the first post = the topic itself). No further source needed. > > > http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/Russell,Bertrand/Religion/Bertrand%20Russell%20-%20Why%20I%20am%20not%20a%20Christian.pdf > > Check this out. It is pdf of his essay 'why I'm not a Christian' > > This is a genius lecture about Russels reasons for being an atheist no doubt. However a lot of things are a bit dated. For example he calls it very doubtful wether christ was a historic figure. This was written in a time, when a lot of arguments had been presented that made christs historicity doubtful. But we have progressed a lot since then, and many of the arguments have been successfully refuted. > > I can see now, where you have your arguments from. Very interesting read. Don't take these things as facts though. Natural science and science of history have progressed quite a bit since it was written. > My one source was his essay actually. The first cause counterargument in my first post and christ's historical fact were taken from it. Some other sources were my own knowledge and books issued from my city's library. More sources were taken from an Indian materialism school. That materialism school had theory of five elements which was a bit outdated. > > > 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. > > "All kinds of" is an idiom. It does not have to mean "all", it usually means "many". This was just a side note of little importance, please forget about it. Alright In the end I'd describe how atheism is rational and theism is irrational Assume you are sitting in a library and it is restricted to go its terrace. You go to that library daily. Once a ceiling fan falls. There might be two probabilities behind this accident- 1. Law of motion 2. Someone Until here theism is somehow rational but not more than atheism because if someone caused the accident, he could born with body. Whereas law of motion was apparently perceived and only some irrational people would think god A.K.A. an imagining entity is beyond this accident (It is ofc ludicrous for us :joy:) You would ask who is there ? But nobody replies you. You got a habit of asking daily but still anyone from terrace does not reply. Here you imagine an unseen entity. You pray to your god daily but he never replies you. But you still think he is there. How theism is rational :joy: ? Avoiding sensual perceptions and living in imagination is humorous. Just imagine you travel spain to russia after closing your eyes but truth is you are sitting on a chair and typing on a keyboard This world or nature is eternal because energy or matter is reserved This world or nature is immoral You cannot prove any of god's attribute as we saw in debate earlier because you would say knowing him is impossible. I have my own arguments to disproving the God and calling theism irrational. An answer will be appreciable from you. 1. Religion runs in the family- It is 99% probable that you are follow the religion in your family because that’s what you have been taught right from your birth. You didn’t decide for yourself which is right or which is rational, at least. We all derive the knowledge from our ancestors which has been through the generations but did you know a new born baby has no believe in any religion 2. Common consent- One of the most common facts of people believing in God is that most people believe in HIM, because when a phenomenon is accepted by majority, it must be true, right ? Let’s compare it to slavery now, which was believed to be acceptable back in the times of Lincoln but now is accepted as a faulty practice 3. No growth in religion - When we look at the technological advancements, we realize a decade ago, we had no idea of the existence of the things that we are experiencing right now, for eg even the smartphone I’m typing this answer. Talking of the scientific evolution, can we apply the same thing to God ? No. We are stuck in believing facts that have been in circulation for centuries. If God exists, why are we so vague about His presence ? 4. Morality needs no religion - Most people believe that absence of God and religion would lead to utter chaos leading to immoral acts. But there are enough incidents to prove that Religious people commit immoral acts in the name of God to make their religion look superior. Hypocrisy, eh ? 5. Existence of evil - If theists say that God is noble and good, why do they ignore the existence of evil in the world ? If God loves us so dearly, why should He allow evils to exist ? Why should God allow wars and riots that destroy its own creations ? 6. Inconsistency of religions : Think for yourself. If God exists and He created all men and women equal, why do religions exist which forces people to perceive the same thing so differently? If God existed, wouldn’t He have been bigger ? with more powerful effects on the universe ? You are actually praying to things that we ourselves have built up. 7. The point where science fails : Gods existence is proved by pointing out phenomenon that science can’t explain and hence they are facilitated by God. And why not ? In ancient Greek, Poseidon was believed to be behind earthquakes but is now a scientific activity. It’s not a very convincing fact that our lack of knowledge about the cosmos be a substitute for the existence of a supernatural force. Your bike could be an example of child marriage as well. For an example my dad married in the age of 15. My grandfather married in the age of 12. They would insist me to do the child marriage because it is a practice in past and they ancestors did so. I'm against of any faulty social practice so i would deny and I will break the chain. The same logic goes with God and bike. God was created with humans' imagination for earning the money. But that doesn't mean a logical man wouldn't break the chain -
@Electrifying-Guy said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
I agree but we have seen how matter is self-cause whereas God is not
No.
We only have cited the scientific consensus that is that energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed inside the universe. This is not equal to saying matter causes itself, or energy causes itself. Please stop saying that anything in the world causes itself, because that is just not something that has ever been observed or makes any sense rationally.
The only thing that was observed was that quantum particles seemingly appear without cause. This is not the same as self-cause however.
Did you just forget first law of thermodynamics ?
Do you really think an imagining entity will cause apple to fall on ground ?
E.g. I throw a stone and apple falls on ground
Explain me what causes apple to fall on ground ?
Also explain me how an imaging entity can create energy ?
For first (law of gravity) he should have limbs to do thatLet me give you a modern answer to an old question. Scientists these days have been wondering very deeply what the universe is at the bottom level. What are quantum particales really? The only thing we really know about them (apart from their existence) are their mathematical and statistical properities.
The answer that some scientists give is, that on the very lowest level of reality, the physical world is made up of information.
As you know information is the contents of the mind. Now it is not so hard to imagine anymore how God could have made the world or act in it right? He could simply think it.
But I really want to end the debate about how God could act in the natural world here, because – if He exists – it really makes no sense to wonder how He does things. This is all just a waste of time wether you argue for or against God...
For second which is already self cause makes him already irrational
I think we have said everything that could have been said about the problem of self-cause. I have nothing to add.
Asking yourself why God has put certain laws in place is nonsense, since (if He exists) you cannot possibly understand God's reasoning.
'You cannot know' is not an argument to believe in something who is beyond our perception
I did not say that. It is just an argument against Russels argument, that's all. Not an argument for God's existence.
I was reading interpretion of bible from some website, Your interpretation is very different to that one so it is not my mistake :(
No, it is not your fault. No need to assume, you can simply ask me :blush:
You need to know that basically there is
- the catholic church, which is the oldest and biggest church with the most followers. I am catholic and I do believe that the Lord will not mislead his church in its teachings. Also the catholic church is the one that tries to integrate reason and science into its teachings the most.
- the orthodox churches basically share the same teaching, but their method is not as scientific
- the anglican church who also shares the same teaching, but in recent years has basically left most of its old morality behind
- and then there are 20.000 protestant denominations, who basically originate from Martin Luther's teachings. They all have their own teachings, and you'll find truth as well as the greatest BS if you read their stuff. Its basically meaningless to even throw yourself in there. You'll never reach the end of the discussions of who's right.
So in general you can assume that my source for the catholic teachings is the catechism of the catholic church: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
You will also hear from me my own believes (which to the best of my knowledge do not contradict the cathecism anywhere) and my own arguments.
Also, he will send me in hell if I do some sins. I will not do those sins because I'm afraid of going to hell. Isn't it against free will ?
- People of all ages who believed in God and believed in hell did still sin and also good. So it does not make a practical difference...
- You only go to hell if you do not accept God's mercy. Jesus after all came to save us from hell. Its basically also your free choice.
And last but not least, the catholic teaching about hell is the following: When you die, you see God who is absolute love, peace and joy. You also get to see your own deeds through God's eyes. This is judgement. Then you get His mercy offered to you for the final time. You now have the choice to accept his judgement and his mercy, or say: you have no right to judge me. If you don't accept His mercy, you don't accept Him. This means you will be without Him, which means you will be without love, peace and joy. And being without God, being without anything good (for God is all good) is hell. The love you did not accept burns hotter than you could ever imagine.
Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able ?
Then he is not omnipotent
Is he able, but not willing ?
Then he is malevolent
Is he both able and willing ?
Then whence cometh evil ?
Is he neither able nor willing ?
Then why call him God ?I cannot give you a rational answer, so you are allowed to say, that the following is no answer at all. But this is the catholic doctrine:
God's greatest wish for you is that you love Him. There is no love without free will. It would just be meaningless. Thus for free will to be, you must have the choice to do evil. Evil causes suffering. Willingly accepting suffering is to atone for your sins and for the sins of others (to be more correct it is Christ who atones in you). Thus through accepting suffering you can love God and your neighbour. Also, there is no such thing as love without sacrifice.
As I said this is not a rational answer, but it is the catholic doctrine.
-
@Electrifying-Guy said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
When cause aka god itself is doubtful its effect will also be doubtful
its result will also be doubtfulWe have the effects and the results. It is what we perceive. So we are thinking in the other direction.
Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder?
Do you know of any painting that didn't have a painter?
Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker?
If you answered YES for any of the above, give detailsI don't get where you are going with this. Of course not.
If i did put nature in the first cause it would be the the most rational argument for disproving the God. Because energy or matter is not created or destroyed by anyone. Nobody could cause it. It would be itself cause .
That matter or energy does not get created or destroyed is a scientific consensus (not a fact!), and it is limited to this universe only. And it is not rational to say that nature causes itself, for how can anything cause itself? The most rational (though not completely rational) thing you could say, is that nature has no cause and is eternal.
Whatever you would say will be not a fact. Facts are always different from opinions
You don't want to read source because you are either lazy or you have just a mindset
Read both definitions from here https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/You missunderstood. I did read your sources. I just have no source for my own arguments (the ones I was referring to, for others of my arguments I could give you sources), because 1. I wrote them in their entirety, thus you can think them trough and disprove them and 2. they are my own arguments, so I would only cite myself. Maybe someone else has thought them before me though, I wouldn't know and thus don't claim I'm the first.
In the end I'd describe how atheism is rational and theism is irrational
Assume you are sitting in a library and it is restricted to go its terrace. You go to that library daily. Once a ceiling fan falls.
There might be two probabilities behind this accident-- Law of motion
- Someone
Until here theism is somehow rational but not more than atheism because if someone caused the accident, he could born with body. Whereas law of motion was apparently perceived and only some irrational people would think god A.K.A. an imagining entity is beyond this accident (It is ofc ludicrous for us :joy:)
You would ask who is there ? But nobody replies you. You got a habit of asking daily but still anyone from terrace does not reply. Here you imagine an unseen entity. You pray to your god daily but he never replies you. But you still think he is there. How theism is rational :joy: ?
Actually He does reply to many, especially in our times (the times of the second pentecoste). Yeah, the imiginative entity is answering. The imaginative entitiy is even making predictions that come true. Like this message here which predicts the world trade center tragedy by exactly 10 years to the day. But of course that might be the collective unconscious or sheer chance. I cannot persuade you to believe, it is your choice :shrug:
Avoiding sensual perceptions and living in imagination is humorous. Just imagine you travel spain to russia after closing your eyes but truth is you are sitting on a chair and typing on a keyboard
This world or nature is eternal because energy or matter is reserved
This world or nature is immoral
You cannot prove any of god's attribute as we saw in debate earlier because you would say knowing him is impossible.Yes. Agreed. Knowing Him in a philosophical or rational way is impossible.
I have my own arguments to disproving the God and calling theism irrational. An answer will be appreciable from you.
- Religion runs in the family- It is 99% probable that you are follow the religion in your family because that’s what you have been taught right from your birth. You didn’t decide for yourself which is right or which is rational, at least. We all derive the knowledge from our ancestors which has been through the generations but did you know a new born baby has no believe in any religion
In fact christianity is the only religion that grows through conversion in our time and age. There are 10.000 babtisms every day in china alone.
- Common consent- One of the most common facts of people believing in God is that most people believe in HIM, because when a phenomenon is accepted by majority, it must be true, right ? Let’s compare it to slavery now, which was believed to be acceptable back in the times of Lincoln but now is accepted as a faulty practice
Agreed.
- No growth in religion - When we look at the technological advancements, we realize a decade ago, we had no idea of the existence of the things that we are experiencing right now, for eg even the smartphone I’m typing this answer. Talking of the scientific evolution, can we apply the same thing to God ? No. We are stuck in believing facts that have been in circulation for centuries. If God exists, why are we so vague about His presence ?
Actually the teachings of the catholic church and especially about morality have been developing. Or lets be more exact: they have gotten more detailed. Lets take slavery: it was never a dogma, that slavery was okay. It was accepted by the church, but it didn't take an official stance. In 1537 Pope Paul III officially condemned the enslavement of indigenous peoples. This was when the Americas slave trade was in full bloom. And today you can find this teaching in the catechism.
However what the church does of course (since we are talking about God) is to teach eternal (= non-changing) truths. So dogmata never change. But slavery was never a dogma.
- Morality needs no religion - Most people believe that absence of God and religion would lead to utter chaos leading to immoral acts. But there are enough incidents to prove that Religious people commit immoral acts in the name of God to make their religion look superior. Hypocrisy, eh ?
Agreed: morality does not need faith. There are many moral people who do not believe and many believers who are immoral.
However it is quite easy to show that immoral acts are unchristian. Didn't christ say to love your enemies? So if you don't love your enemy, you are not acting christian. And it does not matter if you act unchristian in the name of Christ. In the eyes of God your deeds are still evil...
- Existence of evil - If theists say that God is noble and good, why do they ignore the existence of evil in the world ? If God loves us so dearly, why should He allow evils to exist ? Why should God allow wars and riots that destroy its own creations ?
See my last post.
- Inconsistency of religions : Think for yourself. If God exists and He created all men and women equal, why do religions exist which forces people to perceive the same thing so differently? If God existed, wouldn’t He have been bigger ? with more powerful effects on the universe ? You are actually praying to things that we ourselves have built up.
Agreed. Many people are praying to things we have built up. Many are praying to false gods. Many are praying to the true God, but they don't know Him very well. There is only one true God and thus Christianity is the only religion that convinces people to join through conversion in this time and age (exceptions proving the rule).
- The point where science fails : Gods existence is proved by pointing out phenomenon that science can’t explain and hence they are facilitated by God. And why not ? In ancient Greek, Poseidon was believed to be behind earthquakes but is now a scientific activity. It’s not a very convincing fact that our lack of knowledge about the cosmos be a substitute for the existence of a supernatural force.
Yes people have pointed to lots of those things. Agreed that is irrational. I however have pointed to something that cannot ever be explained by science, something that has to be irrational (the origin of existence) and as you can see you were not able to convince me. But I think we can stop here. We have both said everything we could have said about the topic.
Your bike could be an example of child marriage as well. For an example my dad married in the age of 15. My grandfather married in the age of 12. They would insist me to do the child marriage because it is a practice in past and they ancestors did so. I'm against of any faulty social practice so i would deny and I will break the chain. The same logic goes with God and bike.
This comparison falls so short, that I don't even have words to express it.
God was created with humans' imagination for earning the money. But that doesn't mean a logical man wouldn't break the chain
This is not true. People always believed things. Religion is as old as humans. People have wondered what happens after death forever. People exploiting this deep need inside people's heart came after the fact.
-
@DIV said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
@pe7erpark3r I despise the abrahamic way of life. And their idea of religion.
What exactly do you despise about it? And what is the abrahamic way of life to you?
