How is theism (belief in god) illogical?
Offline BEFORE YOU POST, PLEASE READ: THIS IS ONLY FOR A DEBATE BETWEEN ME AND ATHEISTS. NO FELLOW THEISTS ALLOWED HERE. I AM CONFIDENT THAT I CAN COMPLETELY DEMOLISH ATHEIST BIGOTRY IN THIS THREAD AND I DO NOT NEED ANY HELP. 2 OF MY THREADS GOT DERAILED ALREADY AND HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY LET ATHEISTS OFF THE HOOK FROM ANSWERING MY ARGUMENTS. PLEASE, ONLY PARTICIPATE IN THIS THREAD IF YOU ARE AN ATHEIST THAT WISHES TO ACCEPT THIS CHALLENGE. NO THEISTS EXCEPT MYSELF ALLOWED! I DO NOT LIKE MY THREADS DERAILED!!!
Ok, to start off, this is not a topic about the existence of god. Rather, I am throwing out a challenge to all atheists out there to PROVE TO ME that my belief in god is illogical (or for that matter any more illogical than the big bang or whatnot).
I am particularly interested in what bobspence has to say.
Ok, first of all.
1) Some of you atheists do not believe in a prime mover or "beginning". However, as far as I know, the universe had a beginning (the big bang), a middle (right now), and it will definitely have an end (as far as usable energy energy is concerned). Given this, explain to me why is the belief in a prime mover/beginning illogical?
I don't believe the universe can infinitely exist re-collapsing upon itsself forever because theres too much energy loss to the environment for this to continue.
2) The big bang is an expansion of SPACE and TIME. But a fireball of space/time and energy did not just randomly appear, in fact most experts will tell you that space and time did not exist before the big bang. Do you understand what this means? The universe cannot be the instrument of its own creation. This is illogical and irrational. Therefore it would logically follow that the universe can be a creation of an intelligent being.
3) And so it follows from above that the first cause must have been intelligent. How is this illogical?
4) If god, a being of such immense intelligence, was powerful enough to create the universe, it would logically follow that he would be able to survive this creation, and hence still exists.
5)Now these claims are unsubstantiated, I agree, but I don't see how they are "illogical". Prove to me how my claims which lead to my beliefs are illogical.
We know theres no corroborative DATA to support god's existence, but that doesn't mean there is no LOGIC behind the claim. DATA focuses on empiricism, LOGIC on the other hand is philosophy.
6) Now in the other thread some of you claimed that we can see infinite progression, and "therefore why is it not logical to believe in infinite regress". However, I would like to point out the fact that we have evidence that the so called "infinite" movement is slowing down.
Plus, numbers begin at zero, but can increase indefinitely. The inverse is not true. Same basic thing.
7)Explain why is the following argument for sentience creating the universe is illogical:
Scenario: The universe was spontaneously created. From what we've seen, the universe was only created once. However, the universe has been tailor-made for the evolution of living things. The universe couldn't have set these variables by itself. The odds of it doing that by itself are so small that they should basically be considered zero.
Scenario: A powerful, sentient being was spontaneously created. It learned and evolved. Eventually it learned what a reality needs to sustain living things. Therefore it created these things in one fell swoop, which is EXACTLY what the big bang looks like.
This 2nd scenario could certainly be wrong. But I don't think it's illogical. Demonstrate how it is.
Also, from the other thread, some of you claimed to have the position that you "don't know" what happened in the beginning of the universe or "before the big bang". Lets look at an analogy. Someone asks you, "do you believe it will it rain tomorrow"? By saying yes it will or it will not rain tomorrow you are taking a stance on whether or not it will rain. Saying "I don't know" is not a stance - it can't be proven true or false.
9) The idea of an afterlife is also logical. Logically, the prime mover is extradimensional; he did not just hang around when the universe was a hodge-podge of primordial atoms. This other dimension that he resides in is the "afterlife".
10) Assuming there is an all-powerful prime mover, why it so much of a leap to think that he tried to commune with us, either by talking into someone's head or sending Christ down to Earth?
Alright, there you go. Please take the time and effort to fully demonstrate to me how it is not logical. Sure it may not have empirical data, but I don't see how the belief is illogical.
- Login to post comments
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Answer to O.P.
Theism is illogical because it argues via ambiguity. Since all "religions" contradict Christianity, and most if not all contradict each other including themselves (except Christianity), then general theism is an illogical starting point for the Christian.
If you are a Hindu Theist, are via your position of Hinduism. But I am not going to argue for the Hindu under the auspices of the term "theist."
Another problem with theism in general is that they all have different ways to argue, not argue, and start their arguments. How are we to eradicate the confusion?
The final error in general theism is that God is thus not defined. Intelligent Design folks who are full of logical fallacies leave him undefined. Sure the call Him the Designer, but all the other false religions also claim that.
The only way to argue logically with soundness is to start with the theistic position that is based in reality. That being the Triune Christianity. Otherwise, you are arguing with your mother in law which gets you nowhere except to the divorce court.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Perfect.
Will you have a 1 on 1 debate, with me, on the premise that you can demonstrate the soundness of the theistic position based in reality?
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Christianity contradicts all other religions including it self from decade through decade through its development both synchronically and diachronically so Christianity is an illogical starting point. Both sentences above mean absolutely nothing. All propositions of god argue through ambiguity. Start with your view which is one of (30,000 varieties of Christian denominationalism). But gives us a sufficient overview and specificity how yours is the correct version of "Christianity" over the others though you say it does not contradict itself. Most theism philosophically argued is from the attributes of a Christian god and their ontological arguments come from such. triune Christianity is such a late development and differs from the historical roots and beginnings of Christianity it is a non-starter. define your big guy or should I say your big 3 guy. Oh and which version of triune, triunity or trinitarianism are you going to espouse. Which one on sale from 300-400 BCE did you get real cheap? I'll let you in on a little secret they are all counterfeits and devoid of logical soundness.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Hi Red,
You want me to argue my position. This is taken right out of the Atheist Handbook. All Atheists do this due to fear. Red, I would really enjoy debating you on the position that Atheism is the most logically sound worldview in the world. That would be my choice.
Everybody does it the other way around. And the atheists do this as a trick (though it never works with trained Christians).
What do you say, let's debate on the validity of the worldview of atheism.
_______________
Hey Frank Zappa,
You merely pose ad hominems like flies consume poop. The fact that there are so many denominations demonstrates the Bible since it talkes about people following a different Christ (II Cor 11:3-4). And many will want to come into heaven saying we did this and that for you, and Christ says He never knew you.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Even though it's a logical fallacy...
I can do that.
Let's get it on.
You and I.
1 on 1
No one else...
You just confessed to being 'trained'...
Fuck are you people stoopid...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p).
2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).
3)x necessarily would not allow q
4)p--> not q
5) It is possible that god is x
6)q --> not p
7) Our world=q therefore not p
8)not p
9)not p--->not x
10)not x
11)god= not x
Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being.
None of your three consciousnesses fir the bill for a good being much less a god.
Respectfully,
Frank Zappa
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Keep up the good fight, Brother TG!
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism
Are you from Canada redneF? Ontario, near Hamilton here.
I'm anywhere I find myself...
And you wouldn't believe where I've found myself, at times...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Holy 3 year resurrection, batman!