Atheism = self defeating - bollocks!
More like, atheism = accepting life, warts 'n all.
Atheism = self defeating.
by towerwatchman 315 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
freemindfade
Metaphysics = beyond physics.
Cute
Metaphysics may have the word “physics” in it, but more important is the word “meta”. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, physics is applying math to the real world. Physics has real world applications, metaphysics is speculation. When we treat speculation like it’s science, we create pseudoscience and confusion ensues.
-
redvip2000
First may we define our terms. The word Atheism comes literally from the Greek, alpha the negative and theos [for God], therefore “negative God” or there is no God. It is not saying, “I do not think or believe there is a God”, rather it affirms the non existence of God. It affirms a negative in the absolute.
As other have said, you don't get to define what atheism means for everybody. My type of belief is not regulated by what is written on a dictionary. But even your interpretation is wrong. Stop making leaps base on your custom interpretation. It's making you look like a tool.
-
John_Mann
Mathematics and the scientific method are metaphysical in nature.
Scientific method is metaphysics applied to the physical world only.
The scientific method is built upon several axioms.
Every axiom is metaphysical. Axioms are taken to be true through pure faith.
Sometimes mathematical principles can be used by the scientific method.
-
towerwatchman
To Village idiot.
Let’s test your statement.
Point to any cognitive being that claims to be a unicorn or espouses and promotes the unicorn worldview?
Point to any cognitive being that claims to be an Atheist or espouses and promotes the Ateist worldview?
Seem to live up to your name.
-
towerwatchman
To Saethydd
Theism is guilty of what you are accusing Atheism of doing.
Need to elaborate.
Theists tend to argue that God is necessary because intelligent life must have an innate purpose and/or creator. How can you know that humans aren't simply the first intelligent beings in this chain of purpose? At least humans can be proven to exist with a relative degree of certainty.
The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe had a beginning. Cause and effect states that everything that begins to exist owes its existence to something prior. Role it back to that point of singularity when the first effect came into existence. Question what is the cause?
The cause of the universe therefore must be a transcendent cause beyond the universe. It must be itself uncaused, because we have seen that an infinite series of causes is impossible. It must transcend space and time, since it created space and time, therefore it must be immaterial and nonphysical. And must be unimaginably powerful since it created all matter and energy and finally and must be a personal being, only a mind could fit the above description of the first cause. And it must be a personal being, because this is the only way to explain how a timeless cause can produce a temporal effect with a beginning like the universe. If the cause is impersonal and sufficient to produce its effect, then if the effect is there the cause must be there also.
Now if the cause of the universe is permanently there and is timeless, why isn't the universe permanently there as well, why did the universe come into being, why isn't it as permanent as its cause? The answer to the problem must be that the clause is a personal being with free will, therefore His act of creating the universe is independent of any prior conditions; something spontaneous and new.
However, God, if he existed, would be an intelligent being which has no innate purpose and/or creator, rather, he is to have decided his own purpose after spending an eternity doing... something. Talking to himself perhaps.
Why does God have to have a purpose? Is there some rule that must be followed?
-
towerwatchman
To Scratchme 1010
What a load of crap. Atheism doesn't "denounce" anything. Again, this seems to be based on the premises that (a) Atheists are an organization like the ones theists join, (b) all atheists are somehow united in the same way of thinking as the WT brainwashes people to be, (c) atheists compare notes, get instructions or are aligned with each other and believe the exact same thing (d) atheists are "against" or "anti" something, or (e) we simply refuse to listen to anything other than what reinforces what they believe. All that is just nonsense.
Should take a look at the name on the banner. A-theist
A= against, negative, Theist = God in any form.
Seem to all fit.
Sweetie, it is very simple. We don't need to prove the non existence of God, we don't need to prove anything to you, and for that we don't need a bible, nor a congregation, and certainly not "unlimited knowledge of the universe", whatever that means, anyway to feel confident in pour non-believes. Get over it.
Read the OP, never claimed that Atheist had to prove anything, it is what Atheist claimed by the name they choose.
-
redvip2000
Cause and effect states that everything that begins to exist owes its existence to something prior. Role it back to that point of singularity when the first effect came into existence. Question what is the cause?
We don't know. What a simple amazing concept that is....not knowing. Much better than pretending you know by crow-barring a made up sky daddy into the equation.
And even if there was a god, and since he supposedly exists, what caused him to exist then? Or are you arbitrarily saying the same rule doesn't apply to him? Cause if you do, then i'll arbitrarily do the same for the universe.
-
Berengaria
Etymology
The words "atheism" and "atheist" originated from the Ancient Greek word "ἄθεος"4 ("átheos") meaning "without deities" without any direct or implied anti-theistic (or anti-religious) connotation, for it was impartial in its initially intended use. http://www.defineatheism.com/etymology/
-
towerwatchman
To Rainbow Troll
Empirically speaking, theism could never be totally refuted since, as you pointed out, no one is omniscient.
However, putting that aside for a moment, there are certain logical reasons that the theist God could not exist. Some of the attributes of this alleged being are impossible. Take omnipotence as an example. Is God able to create something indestructible, that not even he could destroy or uncreate? Whether you answer yes or no, his omnipotence is refuted. Or what about his omniscience? Can the theist God ask a question that even he can't answer? If he can, he is not omniscient. If he cannot, he is not omnipotent.Yes or no are both wrong answers. Why limit my choices to two only?
Same as can God create a rock so big He cannot carry it.
If something is self-contradicting it is absolutely impossible. The absolutely impossible may also be called the intrinsically impossible because it carries its impossibility within itself, instead of borrowing it from other impossibilities which in their turn depend upon others. It has no “unless” clause attached to it. It is impossible under all conditions and in all worlds and for all agents.
All agents here include God Himself. His Omniscience means having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight and always possessing universal or complete knowledge, therefore as it applies to us, knew exactly how He was going to create us and all the possible choices we make and the outcomes before He created us. You may attribute miracles to God but not nonsense. Yes there is no limit to His knowledge. If you chose to say “God can gives you free will to choose and at the same time say that God knew exactly what choice you will make from your birth to your death, before you were born, you have succeeded in saying nothing about God, because meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words “God can”. It remains true that all things are possible with God, the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities.
It is impossible for God to carry out both mutually exclusive alternatives, not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.
Is God omnibenevolent; a being of pure love? But who could he have loved before he created the Son and with him everyone else?
Suggest you brush up on your knowledge of Christianity. The Father , Son, and HS are all eternal beings.
More importantly, if this God was all alone in the beginning, how could he have developed a language that would have allowed him to conceptualize, reason and so be capable of creating a universe? Language is a social phenomena. A single, eternal God could not develop a language and without language, conceptual thought, reasoning, mathematics - everything this God would need to create anything - would be impossible for him.
Why, again following Christianity God the Son spoke creation into being. We as humans communicate via language. Why would an all powerful being be limited to language in order to communicate? To communicate one does not need a language but a means of exchanging and expressing ideas.
Did God create the Universe - the universe being defined mathematically as the set of all things existing in space-time? But space-time itself defines existence. A being that that created space-time would have to exist outside of it and therefore, would ipso facto not exist.
Why?
The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe had a beginning. Cause and effect states that everything that begins to exist owes its existence to something prior. Role it back to that point of singularity when the first effect came into existence. Question what is the cause?
The cause of the universe therefore must be a transcendent cause beyond the universe. It must be itself uncaused, because we have seen that an infinite series of causes is impossible. It must transcend space and time, since it created space and time, therefore it must be immaterial and nonphysical. And must be unimaginably powerful since it created all matter and energy and finally and must be a personal being, only a mind could fit the above description of the first cause. And it must be a personal being, because this is the only way to explain how a timeless cause can produce a temporal effect with a beginning like the universe. If the cause is impersonal and sufficient to produce its effect, then if the effect is there the cause must be there also.
Now if the cause of the universe is permanently there and is timeless, why isn't the universe permanently there as well, why did the universe come into being, why isn't it as permanent as its cause? The answer to the problem must be that the clause is a personal being with free will, therefore His act of creating the universe is independent of any prior conditions; something spontaneous and new.
You see, even though I may never be able to disprove theism using the scientific/empirical method, I can easily refute it using logic alone.
Did not even come close.