• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

mikeb768 said:
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?
Click to expand...

In other words no answers, alright, what about the two errors I posted, found in the q-tip, erm quran.
 
stanfr said:
I totally agree that the OP's statement is complete nonsense, but i find your particular argument here almost as annoying, and unfortunately it is used too frequently in these one-sided debates. You know darn well what the meanings of 'something' and 'nothing'. Here, from the very wiki aritcle you cite:
However, even the vacuum has a vastly complex structure, so all calculations of quantum field theory must be made in relation to this model of the vacuum.

The vacuum has, implicitly, all of the properties that a particle may have: spin, or polarization in the case of light, energy, and so on

So, this vacuum is not "nothing" unless you want to limit 'something' to things that have measurable mass.
Click to expand...

In partial defense of what you're responding to, there are two things of note. First, the people who say that something can come out of nothing in this sense are indeed speaking of what can be can be reasonably called "physical nothing," which is actually of value to discussions of reality. Philosophical nothingness, the total absence of everything, is not actually any real value to discussions about reality or any form of "god," except where it comes to showing that it's not feasible in any case. Second, the logic behind "physical" nothing does not logically invoke the need to assume that it came from something else, without needing to invoke special pleading, unlike the god concepts that are put forward. Those two things tend to make it reasonable to bring up in a case like this.
 
mikeb768 said:
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.
The "Law of Causation" as you have defined it doesn't allow for a starting point either. "Infinite Regression" is the "Law of Causation" as they both say exactly the same thing. You will find as much difference between those two ideas as you would comparing flammable and inflammable. If in your "Law of Causation" you make an exception for your god, then you must allow everyone else to make a different exception for whatever they chose which would invalidate the law.

And since it's been all about the videos, I'll see your two apologists and raise you a (Mr.) Deity.



It's equally valid (but more enjoyable to watch).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Aridas said:
In partial defense of what you're responding to, there are two things of note. First, the people who say that something can come out of nothing in this sense are indeed speaking of what can be can be reasonably called "physical nothing," which is actually of value to discussions of reality. Philosophical nothingness, the total absence of everything, is not actually any real value to discussions about reality or any form of "god," except where it comes to showing that it's not feasible in any case. Second, the logic behind "physical" nothing does not logically invoke the need to assume that it came from something else, without needing to invoke special pleading, unlike the god concepts that are put forward. Those two things tend to make it reasonable to bring up in a case like this.
Click to expand...

So now it has gotten to the point that we are literally arguing about "nothing".
 
mikeb768 said:
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]
Click to expand...

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

You'll go to Hell if you believe in the wrong Guy in The Sky. No 72 virgins for you. You'll have to settle for wrinkly raisons instead.

:deadhorse
 
Leftus said:
mikeb768 said:
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.
The "Law of Causation" as you have defined it doesn't allow for a starting point either. "Infinite Regression" is the "Law of Causation" as they both say exactly the same thing. You will find as much difference between those two ideas as you would comparing flammable and inflammable. If in your "Law of Causation" you make an exception for your god, then you must allow everyone else to make a different exception for whatever they chose which would invalidate the law.

And since it's been all about the videos, I'll see your two apologists and raise you a (Mr.) Deity.



It's equally valid (but more enjoyable to watch).
Click to expand...

Semi funny video, kind of a new take on the classic bit by Abbott and Costello "Who's On First".

Getting back to your argument for "Infinite Regression". I am not the one making an exception for God. God it telling us in the Quran that he operates out side of this concept or box which we have created.

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]
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
mikeb768 said:
Leftus said:
mikeb768 said:
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.


Semi funny video, kind of a new take on the classic bit by Abbott and Costello "Who's On First".

Getting back to your argument for "Infinite Regression". I am not the one making an exception for God. God it telling us in the Quran that he operates out side of this concept or box which we have created.

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]
Click to expand...

That's a bit convenient, don't you think?

I think it's special pleading.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
mikeb768 said:
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?
Click to expand...


I don't do youtube, and AFAICT, no one mentioned infinite regress until you did. Straw man arguments are so illogical.
 
mikeb768 said:
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.
Click to expand...


When and where is all this clinging and arguing taking place - excluding your own posts, that is.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

You'll go to Hell if you believe in the wrong Guy in The Sky. No 72 virgins for you. You'll have to settle for wrinkly raisons instead.
Click to expand...

Only people who have not bothered to spend any time reading any of the available religious text would imagine such to be true.

There is only One God. Muslims accept all of the messengers of God. They all brought the same message to the people "Worship God".

Jews accept: Adam, Noah, Lot, Moses, David, Abraham, Joseph, (Rejecting Jesus, and Muhammad)
Christians accept: Adam, Noah, Lot, Moses, David, Abraham, Joseph, Jesus (elevating Jesus to the position of God), (Rejecting Muhammad)
Muslims accept: Adam, Noah, Lot, Moses, David, Abraham, Joseph, Jesus (as a righteous messenger of God), and Muhammad

So we can easily simplify this equation by saying that all three faiths believe in the God of Abraham (Often termed the Abrahamic faiths), and the tenants of Moses.

Not only this but the Quran actually clears up any remaining confusion with the following verse, [Quran 2:62] "Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."
 
mikeb768 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The existence of the Quran is not evidence of the existence of gods. Are you new to these kinds of discussions?
 
mikeb768 said:
...

Convenient? And special pleading to who?
Click to expand...

Why are there different rules for God, than for the Universe?

You say it is impossible for the Universe to be eternal, then say, but it's OK for God to be eternal, just because he's God, and that is one of the things that God is, in my book.

Then you cite some Sura that agrees with you as if it means something that your ideas are the same as a 7th century Arab Camel Trader. Maybe Muhammad did say those things, so what?

He was no more special than any other leader claiming Heavenly Guidance. Why people still fall for it after all these years is a mystery to me.
 
mikeb768 said:
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.
Click to expand...

John Jones said:
The existence of the Quran is not evidence of the existence of gods. Are you new to these kinds of discussions?
Click to expand...

So if that is true, then of the choices shown above which of the available choices do you believe to be most fitting?
 
mikeb768 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't know about where you live, but here on Earth, all scientific theories are provisional - subject to change as more/better evidence becomes available. That applies to the big bang/expanding universe theory.

Where did you study the philosophy of science?
 
mikeb768 said:
So if that is true, then of the choices shown above which of the available choices do you believe to be most fitting?
Click to expand...

What difference does that make? None of them are evidence for the existence of gods, as you seem to be implying in response to Skeptical Ginger.
 
mikeb768 said:
Although we do know the attributes of God which he has chosen to reveal to us.
Click to expand...

We do? So what attributes does your particular god have?

mikeb768 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Why would I be limited to those choices? Why can't I deduce that it's a sincere effort by some deluded individual(s)? Or that it contains too many contradictions to have been written by a reasonable author(s)?

Going with the limited choices you have provided -- Since you state someone brought me the book, and I read it, then it must be a physical book, so therefore it must exist, and choice E is illogical.

The claim that it was sent down from some god would be met by a lack of belief. I have no more reason to believe that claim than I would believe that a book about bigfoot was written by a sasquatch, or that a book about aliens was authored by an extra-terrestrial.

Many sincere books have been written, none of them by gods, and claiming something doesn't make it true, therefore I would deduce that choice D is illogical.

Unless evidence is provided that intelligent beings other than men can author books, I would also delegate choice C as illogical.

That leaves me with A or B, and lacking any further information I am unable to choose between the two.

What did I win?

RayG
 
mikeb768 said:
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]
Click to expand...

No, you don't know that; you believe it. Huge difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom