The Atheist's Dilemma

[Occult1]

In 200 years, science has come closer than ever to answering these questions - the Abrahamic faiths have had 2000 years, and are just angrily repeating the same old nonsense, which isn't getting us anywhere as a civilisation - prayer won't get us to Mars, Newtonian physics will.

There are limits to science though. Clearly, science's role is to deal with the natural world and it's laws. The supernatural is by definition ''out-of-reach'' of scientific means. That's one of the first thing to-become scientists are taught at school. So if such God(s) exist, a question which no one could give any kind of definitive answer 2000 years ago and still can't up to this day, the confirmation or refutation will not come from science.

I have a keen interest in science and some theoritical models in physics are fascinating indeed (the multiverse hypothesis or Neil Turok and Paul J. Steinhardt's cycling model of the Universe on which the big bang is, according to it, a collision of two-brane world in the M theory are good exemple) but nothing is even remotely close, it seems, to answer life's fundamental questions. It may never be.

Edited August 7, 2014 by sam_comm

[Ben Masada]

So far your "logic" has just made you look utterly ignorant.

BTW E=mc2 does not imply energy is accidental

http://plato.stanfor...ntries/equivME/

Because you are unable to distinguish Logic from guesses aka theories. BTW, do you even know what an ad hominem is? Look up in the dictionary to avoid insulting others who cannot believe like you.

[Ben Masada]

These threads still go on ? people find it entertaining or informative to engage with this troll'ery ?

Common folks you must have better things to do than argue against such a poor use of logic.

Br Cornelius

Perhaps you are right that Logic is found only in the atheist theory that matter causes itself to exist. Mind to tell us how? Thank you for your wise insight

[Ben Masada]

If you think you can prove that god exists, then please do so.

Doug

I have done it already and more than several times but, atheist faith won't allow you to take something against your preconceived notions.

[Rlyeh]

Because you are unable to distinguish Logic from guesses aka theories. BTW, do you even know what an ad hominem is? Look up in the dictionary to avoid insulting others who cannot believe like you.

I can tell logic from the uneducated crap you've been babbling. I even had to correct you, not that you're any wiser.

If you were capable of using logic in the first place your straw man thread wouldn't exist.

[the-Unexpected-Soul]

hi AP, what you said in your comment is logical regarding that god must be completely separate from the universe so that cause and effect is not applied to him

how ever Christian dogma fail in that again when they say Jesus is god/part of god, because cause and effect is now applied to god, and also all the attributes of god such as being all powerful is gone since nature is restricting him

[Ben Masada]

Actually, NOBODY - atheist, theist or what-have-you, knows that a "Primal Cause" exists or ever did exist. There is no evidence of this and hence, no way to know. A lot of people are kidding themselves, thinking they know something, but that is just ego, conceit and arrogance. The one who truly knows something, knows that this is unknowable.

Nobody can truthfully say that God does not exits, but neither can he say that God does exist. The person who thinks he has the answer is the fool.

Doug

What you are trying to say is that Logic is a foolish concept. I have used it more than several times to prove the existence of the Primal Cause and you have proved unable to take it. Perhaps you do not understand the meaning of Logic.

[toyomotor]

The Atheist's Dilemma

The atheist's dilemma is his or her struggle to deny the undeniable. When asked for the option to fill in the vacuum left as a result of the removal of the Primal Cause, the usual answer is: I don't know. That's indeed a frustrating dilemma.

Let us avoid the theist method to demonstrate the existence of God to prevent the atheist denial and use Logic which I suppose stands on neutral ground by trying to demonstrate the existence of God by means of a syllogism:

1. First premise: The universe is composed of matter;

2. Second premise: Matter cannot cause itself to exist;

3. Resultant premise: Therefore, the universe was caused to exist.

Now, what could have be the thing that caused the universe to exist? The atheist answer is: I don't know. Yeah, because the only thing they know is that the Primal Cause does not exist. Indeed, a frustrating dilemma which finds explanation only in the atheist struggle to vandalize Theism just for the sake of doing so.

Atheists have another problem-who can they blame when everything turns to $...t?

[Ben Masada]

Actually you did in your opening post

As you can see from the bold, you brought God into the discussion right from the start.

No, I did not. We are not in the start. I have mentioned God here because you have brought a god into the issue. BTW, the Primal Cause mentioned in the thread does not necessarily implies that it was a god; it could be any thing else but, atheists are so paranoid about gods that no matter what one is discussing, the feeling that comes to the atheist heart is that it must be about gods. What is that, fear of some sort?

[Ben Masada]

We live within the Universe, but we are NOT the Universe.

You compare the very minor existence of man to the existence of the Universe in terms of life and death?

I can see you putting a spider in a tank with a snake, give them a week and expect them to be playing poker with each other when you went back to check on them.

You can not use our short time on Earth and how we exist to the way the Universe works.

Sorry Freetoroam, no offense meant, but that's the most... "whatever" comment I have ever heard. A part of the universe is not part of the universe. We just live in it. Is there any thing more embarrassing that this atheist assertion? For heaven's sake!

[Ben Masada]

What kind of parent would leave a Gun and Bullets laying around for a child to figure out to put the two together?

Most people I assume would say a horrible one.

If your God is real? Look at what it left laying around.

You have no business using the word "Logic" for your constant use of the "Argument from Ignorance" fallacy.

No wonder I can't see any difference between atheists and the common theist believers of talking serpent.

[Davros of Skaro]

Because you are unable to distinguish Logic from guesses aka theories. BTW, do you even know what an ad hominem is? Look up in the dictionary to avoid insulting others who cannot believe like you.

You're not unlike an audience member saying that a Magician's magic trick is a work Magic just because the other audience members cannot demonstrate how the trick was done.

Claiming to have the answer because it cannot be disproven while said answer cannot be proven either and to above all else boast it's sound logic is a vomit inducing display.

Just think of a modern day Native American saying that the Turtle Earth origin is true because we have Turtles and Earth today which proves it.Though more absurd than what you're saying, it's not far off to people that follow evidence not on just belief or feelings.

[Davros of Skaro]

No wonder I can't see any difference between atheists and the common theist believers of talking serpent.

From what you parade as logic, there's no surprise that you see just what you want to see.

[Occult1]

Atheists have another problem-who can they blame when everything turns to $...t?

I would have to say science. I've seen some Atheists taking it almost to the level of a religion, where dogma are not to be contradicted and cherished worldviews disturbed. But that's not the case of all Atheists.

Edited August 7, 2014 by sam_comm

[Rlyeh]

I would have to say science. I've seen some Atheists taking it almost to the level of a religion, where dogma are not to be contradicted and cherished worldviews disturbed. That's not the case of all Atheists though.

Really? Science is blamed when things go wrong?

Do you blame maths when you don't have enough money?

[Occult1]

Really? Science is blamed when things go wrong?

Do you blame maths when you don't have enough money?

I do not. Nor would it make me feel any better to point a finger at God(s) in this case.

But who knows, maybe some 'blame' science somehow for not providing technological advancement any faster and improved conditions for a thriving economy and the creation of better jobs?

Edited August 7, 2014 by sam_comm

[Ben Masada]

Atheism deals with the existence or lack thereof a supreme being called God. An Atheist may say that there is no God so no god created the universe but when considering the origin of the universe they turn not to Atheism but to science thus there is no dilemma.

What is this, a cease-fire? Atheist deal with the existence of God only as a reason to cease the fire for some other pretext.

Just for clarity we will use the following definitions: Premise - a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion.

"if the premise is true, then the conclusion must be true"

Since Logic proves my premises to be true, the conclusion is obviously true.

Syllogism - an instance of a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn (whether validly or not) from two given or assumed propositions (premises), each of which shares a term with the conclusion, and shares a common or middle term not present in the conclusion (e.g., all dogs are animals; all animals have four legs; therefore all dogs have four legs ).

Wrong! Not all animals have four legs. I know of a few that have from 3 up to the legs of the centipede.

Knowing that a premise is just a statement, it is not evidence that supports itself, other statements or the conclusion. For example your first premise is the universe is composed of matter. Generally this is essentially true because science has determined this to be true so your premise is correct. However, if science showed the universe to be composed of anti-energy then your premise would be false.

Hypothetical conclusion which would not lead to the truth. At least my first premise is supported by Science to be true. I give that one to you.

In a general sense your three premises are correct. Your conclusion is another matter. You have started with a foregone conclusion that God created the universe. Since the catalyst can be either a who or a what, and with no evidence shown to support the conclusion of a who, we can say your conclusion has not been validated.

You have confirmed my assertion that atheists go according to preconceived notions based on a faithful grudge against the probability that the Primal Cause exists. That's a shame for lack of a better word..

As far as your last statement, if you believe that those who disagree with your theistic views are vandalizing theism simply because they disagree with you, then the problem lies not with them but with you.

Now, you are judging Science according to personal conceptions which could be true after all. I doubt though cosmologists would agree with you.

[Ben Masada]

Ben -

I know you're not a Christian, but this poor-me attitude sounds just like our American Christians who claim both to be the country's largest denomination and a persecuted minority. Give me a break. Do you think atheists have nothing better to do than "vandalize" theism?

Doug

You are on denial. You know that's true. If there was no such an atheist grudge against Theism, you would acknowledge the concepts of probability and causality.

[Ben Masada]

I fail to see how your second premise logically becomes the third premise. To me, it sounds similar to the 'it must be God who made this' because it's there. That is not proof, no matter how you wish it. And Atheist do not struggle to deny, they deny because of no proof, where's the struggle?

And you cannot see the reason for the "It must be god?" Because atheists are paranoid about gods. It is impossible to talk to an atheist about the origin of the universe without having them pushing gods out of the issue.

[Ben Masada]

The Atheist's Dilemma:

Romans 14:11,12 For as it is written, AS I LIVE,SAITH THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TOUNGE SHALL CONFESS TO GOD. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Yes, but during the time we live and by means of the law of cause and effect. The Lord is not the God of the dead but of the living.

[Ben Masada]

I'm agnostic because I Don't Know. I don't know the how's and why's that caused everything exist. So I ride the fence, attempting to balance between a as of yet unknown causal force of creation. Be it natural or supernatural.

Unless you are okay with not knowing, at least be aware that there are ways to learn.

[toyomotor]

No wonder I can't see any difference between atheists and the common theist believers of talking serpent.

Say what?

[Imaginarynumber1]

In this thread: Ben misunderstands science, again.

[eight bits]

Ben

Unless you are okay with not knowing, at least be aware that there are ways to learn.

No, actually there aren't for the question of gods. It doesn't matter whether or not somebody is "okay with not knowing." Nobody knows. At least some people do know the difference between real syllogisms and let's pretend that typing out baloney using three lines makes it logical.

[toyomotor]

In this thread: Ben misunderstands science, again.

As he misunderstands religion.