Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

[Brainache]

But, Earth is like ostrich egg. Is miracle!

I just hope I'm not around when it hatches... That would make H. P. Lovecraft
look like Beatrix Potter.

Surah 23:14 makes the claim that human beings are formed from a clot of blood. Surah 18:86 claims that the sun sets in a spring of murky water.

[source] http://www.gotquestions.org/errors-Quran.html#ixzz2mvD9Nbcl

Thanks for that. So, Quran 0 Science 3 at the break, it's not looking good for the plucky Muslims, let's see what they can do in the second half...

The reason why "Infinite Regress" has been deemed illogical is, because it does not allow for a start point, in other terms according to Infinite Regress nothing would ever be initiated.

Just watch the video which can be found in the OP if you still do not understand. Or watch this shorter video.

Unless you can explain the theory in more logical manner?

So pointing out the flaw in the Theist position is, by definition, "Illogical". Heads I win, tails you lose...

 

[HansMustermann]

We don't know where God came from? Although we do know the attributes of God which he has chosen to reveal to us.

Say, "He is God, [who is] One,
God, the Eternal Refuge.
He neither begets nor is born,
Nor is there to Him any equivalent."
[Quran 112:1-4]

No. Even if I were to grant the Kalam argument -- though actually it's still bogus -- again, all it says is that SOMETHING created the universe. It doesn't say that particularly your book is correct about who or how.

Even if you choose to go by Kalam, it doesn't say WHICH god created it, nor WHICH book is correct about it, if any at all. Because at the end of the bullcrap "nothing comes from nothing" argument, it still doesn't say that whoever created that universe also dictated a book at all, much less which or to whom.

Your deciding to trust the Quran about it, is just as justifiable as deciding to trust the book of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any other such text. There is nothing in the Kalam argument that says it was Allah who dictated his story to one particular Arab bandit, as opposed to the Flying Spaghetti Monster dictating it to Captain Mosey, or whatver.

So quoting from the Quran is still just wishful thinking on your part, rather than settling it.

 

[mikeb768]

Are you assuming that infinite regress is an intrinsic feature of atheism?

You guys seem to be the only ones still trying to cling to it. The first video which I posted which soundly debunked the theory was from a Christian, the second one was from a Muslim.

Although I must admit I did not expect people to try to cling to the theory with such force. It's almost like people still wanting to hold onto/argue the theory that the universe has always existed, despite us now knowing that this is something which is in direct opposition to logic and science.

 

[HansMustermann]

Maybe you can explain us why you feel that it is not?

Isn't that an argument from ignorance?

 

[Foster Zygote]

You guys seem to be the only ones still trying to cling to it. The first video which I posted which soundly debunked the theory was from a Christian, the second one was from a Muslim.

Although I must admit I did not expect people to try to cling to the theory with such force. It's almost like people still wanting to hold onto/argue the theory that the universe has always existed, despite us now knowing that this is something which is in direct opposition to logic and science.

Well news flash: infinite regress isn't a feature of atheism.

So, again, what did God come from?

 

[Brian-M]

The OP looks like it's trying to present some sort of logical challenge to the reader, so I'll respond to it without first reading the other replies.

If the statement "Nothing comes from Nothing" is True?
And the statement "Something comes from Something" is also True?

What exactly do you mean by "nothing" and "something"?

And what exactly do you mean by these questions?
Thinking them over, it looks like they can each be interpreted at least three different ways...

"Nothing comes from Nothing" could mean...

1. "Nothing" is the only source of "Nothing".
2. "Nothing' is one source of more "Nothing".
3. "Nothing" is only able to produce "Nothing".

"Something comes from Something" could mean...

1. "Something" is the only source of "Something".
2. "Something" is one source of more "Something".
3. "Something" is only able to produce "Something".

I have no idea what you're trying to ask. Which did you mean?

Does vacuum count as "nothing"?
Do virtual particles count as "something"?
If the answer to both these questions is "yes" then something can come from nothing.

Further Discussion
In the Quran we are told by God that "Truth stands out clearly from falsehood"

While there may be cases where "truth stands out clearly from falsehood", there are also many cases where truth and falsehood are virtually indistinguishable from each-other.

[Quran 2:256]. Another way of thinking of this can be that Truth and Lies are unable to occupy the same space. This can also be understood as the basis for Logic.

I was unaware that abstract concepts occupied any space.

Logic in Islam [1] God swears by "the Even and the Odd", #.

That's a link to a thread in this forum that presents a laughably absurd claim to numerology in the Quran. I'm not seeing any logical argument there. And there's no need to discuss it in this thread because it already has an entire thread of its own.

Logic in Islam [2] Discussion of Authorship of the Quran using Logic.

Okay, that video starts out with a good premise.

It states that there are three options...
1. The Quran is authored by God
2. The Quran is authored by Satan
3. The Quran is authored by human beings

(It seems to ignore other possibilities, such as the Quran being authored by Djinn, but for sake of argument I'll ignore that.)

It also states that if we eliminate two of these three possibilities, the third is proven. Okay, I'll buy that.

But it goes downhill from there. The argument against Satan is little more than personal opinion and argument from incredulity. It seems to me that the speaker fails to consider that Satan (assuming that he exists) might be capable of incredibly devious and subtle in his works. So that option is not eliminated.

The argument against humans is even worse. First he discusses the possibility of Mohammad being the author, and seems to discount it on account that Mohammad would never have tried to upset the Arabs by naming a chapter after a Jew (Mary). But that assumes that the Arabs that Mohammad was dealing with at the time were antagonistic against Jews, and it also assumes that Mohammad picked the title of the chapter, rather than the people who later wrote it down. Neither of these were necessarily true.

And it just goes on in that manner.

I gave up on the video when they started talking about events in the Quran and making unsubstantiated claims that it has a miraculous scientific aspect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK2r8DLvVEA Logic in Islam [3] Discussion of the Quran being interwoven with the Number "19" as a sign for those who choose to disbelieve, [Quran 74:30]. *A conversation which was so compelling that one moderator actually resorted to wholesale censorship.

Another absurd numerology thread that resulted in ridicule from other posters. A thread where the moderator had to edit the OP because you ignored copyright law by copy-pasting the material directly into the post instead of providing a link to the site where the material was taken from.

I notice that in quoting this part of your post that you seem to have been trying to provide a link to another video, but since there was no text between the URL tags, it didn't show up in your post... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK2r8DLvVEA

"Document X"... interesting title, but I lack the patience to spend close to two hours watching a random YouTube video without knowing what it's about. Can't seem to find any info about it elsewhere. It seems that there's a major document generator with a similar name that makes searching for info on this video tricky.

 

[HansMustermann]

You guys seem to be the only ones still trying to cling to it. The first video which I posted which soundly debunked the theory was from a Christian, the second one was from a Muslim.

Err... so? I mean, surely even for you it must be obvious that two examples of people doling out the same bogus arguments doesn't mean it's settled that way and everyone else agrees.

I mean, I can link you more than two nutcases explaining that holographic airplanes and thermite were used to bring the towers down in 9/11. Or that the moon landing was a hoax. It doesn't mean that the rest of the world agreed and ditched the theory that actual airplanes crashed into actual buildings, or respectively that NASA actually flew someone to the moon.

I mean, seriously, even by apologist nonsense standards, the idea that you linked to two idiots on youtube, and that shows it's settled, is stupid.

Although I must admit I did not expect people to try to cling to the theory with such force. It's almost like people still wanting to hold onto/argue the theory that the universe has always existed, despite us now knowing that this is something which is in direct opposition to logic and science.

Dude, adding bulverism to it ain't making it any less bogus.

 

[mikeb768]

I can't speak for anyone else but my atheism comes from evidence. There is overwhelming evidence gods are human invented myth, zero evidence there are real gods, ergo the evidence supports by the widest of margins the conclusion that no gods exist.

Just making sure I follow you. So someone brought you a book (The Quran) which they claimed to have been sent down from God. You read it and then deduced one of the following:

This book is the work of:
A) A man.
B) Many men.
C) Some intelligent beings other than men.
D) The book is sincere to its claims and authorship, thus being from God.
E) The book does not exist, logically speaking of course.

 

[HansMustermann]

Just making sure I follow you. So someone brought you a book (The Quran) which they claimed to have been sent down from God. You read it and then deduced one of the following:

This book is the work of:
A) A man.
B) Many men.
C) Some intelligent beings other than men.
D) The book is sincere to its claims and authorship, thus being from God.
E) The book does not exist, logically speaking of course.

Well, what we deduced isn't important. But if you quote from it under the assumption that it was D, you first get to show conclusive evidence that it is D. You're the one making two positive claims boiling down to "X exists" (X being Allah i your case) and "Y happened" (Y being dictating the book), you get the burden of proof for both. And you can't go circular about it.

 

[Brian-M]

The reason why "Infinite Regress" has been deemed illogical is, because it does not allow for a start point, in other terms according to Infinite Regress nothing would ever be initiated.

Just watch the video which can be found in the OP if you still do not understand. Or watch this shorter video.

Unless you can explain the theory in more logical manner?

The speaker in that video seems to be missing the point of the question "what caused God". It isn't to introduce claims of infinite regress.

The point is that believers think that God always existed. But if it's possible for God to have always existed, why can't the universe also have always existed without a need for God as an explanation? (The Big Bang is not an ironclad argument against the universe having always existed.)

To claim that it's impossible for the universe to have always existed while also claiming that God has always existed is a case of special pleading.

ETA: Suggesting that the universe (or God) has always existed is not the same as making a claim of infinite regress.

 

[Brian-M]

It is certainly not logical to claim there is no afterlife because science has found no way to verify this as true.

By the same reasoning, it's not logical to claim that magical pixies don't exist, because science has found no way to verify their nonexistence.

 

[mikeb768]

Well, what we deduced isn't important. But if you quote from it under the assumption that it was D, you first get to show conclusive evidence that it is D. You're the one making two positive claims boiling down to "X exists" (X being Allah i your case) and "Y happened" (Y being dictating the book), you get the burden of proof for both. And you can't go circular about it.

Why wouldn't your deduction be important? Did I not include enough options in the list, or do you think that there are others which should be added, or some which should be removed.

This is not an attempt to corner anyone here, just a simple showing of reasoning and deduction.

 

[Brian-M]

Yeah but the book is has consistently been found to be correct.

 

[mikeb768]

The speaker in that video seems to be missing the point of the question "what caused God". It isn't to introduce claims of infinite regress.

The point is that believers think that God always existed. But if it's possible for God to have always existed, why can't the universe also have always existed without a need for God as an explanation? (The Big Bang is not an ironclad argument against the universe having always existed.)

To claim that it's impossible for the universe to have always existed while also claiming that God has always existed is a case of special pleading.

ETA: Suggesting that the universe (or God) has always existed is not the same as making a claim of infinite regress.

The Bang Theory/The Expanding Universe Theory, are both pretty ironclad. I'm not sure what planet you are living on, to try and argue otherwise.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Why wouldn't your deduction be important? Did I not include enough options in the list, or do you think that there are others which should be added, or some which should be removed.

This is not an attempt to corner anyone here, just a simple showing of reasoning and deduction.

Curious cat; How does one reason out Muhammads under age (9 year old) bride?

 

[Brainache]

The Bang Theory/The Expanding Universe Theory, are both pretty ironclad. I'm not sure what planet you are living on, to try and argue otherwise.

Same planet where people apparently still believe the Universe was conjured into existence by a supernatural being incanting a magic spell...

Unfortunately.

 

[Iamme]

Atheism - that is, 'Not-Theism', doesn't 'come' from anywhere. To simplify it for you, it's the default state. It's where we all start from, before whatever society we live in indoctrinates us into a Theism state.

You just make that up? I think that it is more logical, in lack of any evidence when we are young, to believe that a watch cant make itself, and that the default setting is that of a supreme entity creating everything.

As children, we believe those who have power over us (parents, society, our 'elders', whatever) when they tell us things. As children, we don't know enough to ask why - or , as happens oftimes, asking 'why' gets us punished/beaten/ignored/lectured, whatever.

We quickly learn not to question those who are in control of us.

Not true. Both me and my cousin were brought up in separate religious households, and when we were old enough to have heard both sides of the argument, we formed our own beliefs...and kept these thoughts away from our parents. Hehe. But i`ll spot you this; before you are old enough to have heard counterpoints, you probably believe what your parents teach you.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The Bang Theory/The Expanding Universe Theory, are both pretty ironclad. I'm not sure what planet you are living on, to try and argue otherwise.

Expansion cosmology does not state that the universe sprang into being ex nihilo, despite popular misconceptions. It only says that at one point in space/time the universe is extremely hot and dense. In hyperspace, the universe may well exist uncreated.

So what did God come from?

 

[mikeb768]

Curious cat; How does one reason out Muhammads under age (9 year old) bride?

The tactic of character assassination is nothing new. When unable to discredit the message, they attempt to discredit the messenger.

Examples of this can be seen in the recent revelations regarding the NSA, the well known case against Julian Assange, the tactic used by the infamous Richard Nixon, and countless others.

The issue of Muhammad's marriage was not considered an issue during the period in which it took place, in fact it was common practice for girls to be married once they hit puberty.

Try and stay focused on the topic of discussion. Maybe someone will be able to provide a response to the question posed in the OP?

 

[Brian-M]

The Bang Theory/The Expanding Universe Theory, are both pretty ironclad. I'm not sure what planet you are living on, to try and argue otherwise.

I'm not saying that they're not true. I'm saying that they don't eliminate all possibilities for having a universe that always existed.

For example, there's the cyclic universe theory which suggests that the universe expands, collapses, then expands again in a continuous cycle. The universe could be looped, with the same events playing out over and over again for all eternity.

Another possibility comes from the fact that the known laws of physics break down at the time of the Big Bang. We can't know what happened before it. It might be possible that the universe always existed as a continuously expanding singularity, and it's only at the time of the Big Bang that it grew large enough for the known laws of physics to take effect.

Or we could go with the explanation Hawkins gives in A Brief History of Time... that the further back you go in time, as you approach the Big Bang the more distorted time becomes. At the moment of the Big Bang, time is so distorted there is no before. Asking what happened before the Big Bang is like asking what's south of the south pole.

In that case, the universe is shaped like a four-dimensional sphere (the fourth dimension being time). Where is the "start" of a sphere? The four-dimensional universe is finite and unchanging, needing no creator because it has no "start", merely an earliest point in time. (The passage of time being merely an illusion that we experience.)