Total Posts:116|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Non-Theists: Major Issues Concerning Belief

Ontos
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 9:55:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What are the major reasons against affirming belief in theism?
Don't have to argue for them just yet. I was just wondering... :-)
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 10:01:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Lack of evidence + necessity for faith = I'm an atheist.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 10:19:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In my opinion, there is absolutely no good reason to believe theism is true. If someone told you they had a device which could create black holes the size of the one in the center of our galaxy, but gave you no good reasons to believe it was true, would you believe it? I think the answer would be no. If I told you there is a being beside you who laughs at you in his mind all day while he follows you around, only the physical world cannot detect him, would you believe it? I think not. The idea of a personal, all powerful, intelligent creator of the cosmos does not seem to fall in line with the way reality at all, and it seems to be an unfalsifiable claim, like the claim that there is life on Mars only they live underneath the crust where we can't observe yet.

Theistic believes seem to based on things that are unverifiable, and then when you make this point, they claim well if God exists, it only makes sense that he would be unverifiable. I don't buy it, because anyone can make an unfalsiable claim.

It's hard to explain why I'm not a theist, I just honestly think the idea of a God existing is hooey. It just instantly strikes me as not true, like if someone said they had a time machine.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 10:34:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 10:19:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In my opinion, there is absolutely no good reason to believe theism is true. If someone told you they had a device which could create black holes the size of the one in the center of our galaxy, but gave you no good reasons to believe it was true, would you believe it? I think the answer would be no. If I told you there is a being beside you who laughs at you in his mind all day while he follows you around, only the physical world cannot detect him, would you believe it? I think not. The idea of a personal, all powerful, intelligent creator of the cosmos does not seem to fall in line with the way reality at all, and it seems to be an unfalsifiable claim, like the claim that there is life on Mars only they live underneath the crust where we can't observe yet.

Theistic believes seem to based on things that are unverifiable, and then when you make this point, they claim well if God exists, it only makes sense that he would be unverifiable. I don't buy it, because anyone can make an unfalsiable claim.

It's hard to explain why I'm not a theist, I just honestly think the idea of a God existing is hooey. It just instantly strikes me as not true, like if someone said they had a time machine.

Christianity is not an unfalsifiable claim though. If you could prove that God is contradictory than it would falsify christianity. If you could prove that Jesus was not the Son of God than it would show Christianity to be false.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 10:34:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 10:01:52 PM, Oryus wrote:
Lack of evidence + necessity for faith = I'm an atheist.

What type of evidence would you need in order to become a theist?
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 10:37:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 10:34:45 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:01:52 PM, Oryus wrote:
Lack of evidence + necessity for faith = I'm an atheist.

What type of evidence would you need in order to become a theist?

The hard kind.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 10:38:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 10:37:51 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:34:45 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:01:52 PM, Oryus wrote:
Lack of evidence + necessity for faith = I'm an atheist.

What type of evidence would you need in order to become a theist?

The hard kind.

AKA- no faith necessary.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 10:39:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 10:38:12 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:37:51 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:34:45 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:01:52 PM, Oryus wrote:
Lack of evidence + necessity for faith = I'm an atheist.

What type of evidence would you need in order to become a theist?

The hard kind.

AKA- no faith necessary.

Do you mean scientific evidence?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 10:40:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 10:37:51 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:34:45 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:01:52 PM, Oryus wrote:
Lack of evidence + necessity for faith = I'm an atheist.

What type of evidence would you need in order to become a theist?

The hard kind.

That literally explains nothing further.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 10:45:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 10:34:03 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:19:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In my opinion, there is absolutely no good reason to believe theism is true. If someone told you they had a device which could create black holes the size of the one in the center of our galaxy, but gave you no good reasons to believe it was true, would you believe it? I think the answer would be no. If I told you there is a being beside you who laughs at you in his mind all day while he follows you around, only the physical world cannot detect him, would you believe it? I think not. The idea of a personal, all powerful, intelligent creator of the cosmos does not seem to fall in line with the way reality at all, and it seems to be an unfalsifiable claim, like the claim that there is life on Mars only they live underneath the crust where we can't observe yet.

Theistic believes seem to based on things that are unverifiable, and then when you make this point, they claim well if God exists, it only makes sense that he would be unverifiable. I don't buy it, because anyone can make an unfalsiable claim.

It's hard to explain why I'm not a theist, I just honestly think the idea of a God existing is hooey. It just instantly strikes me as not true, like if someone said they had a time machine.

Christianity is not an unfalsifiable claim though. If you could prove that God is contradictory than it would falsify christianity. If you could prove that Jesus was not the Son of God than it would show Christianity to be false.

I never said Christianity, I said theism in general. Regardless, If I logically show inconsistencies with a God with properties set A, theists will claim that it doesn't prove that a God doesn't exist in general. If I logically show inconsistencies with a god with properties set B, theists will claim that it doesn't prove that a God doesn't exist in general.

If we play this game enough, we will eventually get to a point where God becomes an unfalsiable claim.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 10:47:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 10:45:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


I never said Christianity, I said theism in general. Regardless, If I logically show inconsistencies with a God with properties set A, theists will claim that it doesn't prove that a God doesn't exist in general. If I logically show inconsistencies with a god with properties set B, theists will claim that it doesn't prove that a God doesn't exist in general.

If we play this game enough, we will eventually get to a point where God becomes an unfalsiable claim.

Yes, my apologies you did say theism and not Christianity. Could you tell me an example of God being contradictory?
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 10:53:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 10:39:43 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:38:12 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:37:51 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:34:45 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:01:52 PM, Oryus wrote:
Lack of evidence + necessity for faith = I'm an atheist.

What type of evidence would you need in order to become a theist?

The hard kind.

AKA- no faith necessary.

Do you mean scientific evidence?

Yes. I do.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 10:53:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 10:53:02 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:39:43 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:38:12 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:37:51 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:34:45 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:01:52 PM, Oryus wrote:
Lack of evidence + necessity for faith = I'm an atheist.

What type of evidence would you need in order to become a theist?

The hard kind.

AKA- no faith necessary.

Do you mean scientific evidence?

Yes. I do.

Do you believe science can prove everything?
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 10:55:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 10:53:45 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:53:02 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:39:43 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:38:12 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:37:51 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:34:45 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:01:52 PM, Oryus wrote:
Lack of evidence + necessity for faith = I'm an atheist.

What type of evidence would you need in order to become a theist?

The hard kind.

AKA- no faith necessary.

Do you mean scientific evidence?

Yes. I do.

Do you believe science can prove everything?

How would I know that?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 11:04:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 10:58:31 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:55:46 PM, Oryus wrote:


How would I know that?

I was asking your opinion.

That's my opinion haha
How could I know? I'd have to know everything to know whether science could prove it all.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 11:04:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 10:47:49 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:45:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


I never said Christianity, I said theism in general. Regardless, If I logically show inconsistencies with a God with properties set A, theists will claim that it doesn't prove that a God doesn't exist in general. If I logically show inconsistencies with a god with properties set B, theists will claim that it doesn't prove that a God doesn't exist in general.

If we play this game enough, we will eventually get to a point where God becomes an unfalsiable claim.

Yes, my apologies you did say theism and not Christianity. Could you tell me an example of God being contradictory?

Here is a quick 3:

The Christian God is supposed to be perfect, but only flawed beings who are missing something that they need or want have incentive to create or design. If God was lonely, or bored (which makes no sense because why would a perfect being have petty ape like feelings) then it doesn't really follow that he is perfect. I mean, why would't a perfect being be satisfied with his perfection instead of creating out of a need or want?

If God exists, then he is omniscient and he is free at the same time. Now, an omniscient being must know exactly what actions he will and will not do in the future. Therefore, if one knows that he will do an action, then it is impossible for him not to do it, and if one knows that he will not do an action, then it is impossible for him to do it. Thus, a contradiction.

If the Christian God exists, then he is both all just and all merciful. However, An all just judge treats every offender with exactly the severity that he or she deserves. An all merciful judge treats every offender with less severity than he or she deserves. So these properties don't mix.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 11:06:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 11:04:22 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:58:31 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:55:46 PM, Oryus wrote:


How would I know that?

I was asking your opinion.

That's my opinion haha
How could I know? I'd have to know everything to know whether science could prove it all.

Do you think that science could prove God?
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 11:12:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 11:06:20 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/22/2012 11:04:22 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:58:31 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/22/2012 10:55:46 PM, Oryus wrote:


How would I know that?

I was asking your opinion.

That's my opinion haha
How could I know? I'd have to know everything to know whether science could prove it all.

Do you think that science could prove God?

That's kind of a silly question though isn't it? If theists could agree on the nature of god, perhaps I would have an answer for you.

I swear. I try to see the world through the eyes of theists all the time. I rarely ever meet theists who honestly try to look at the world through the eyes of an atheist. You're asking me right now if I believe science can prove something I don't believe exists.

Here's a question for you: Can you picture religion without faith? If so, what would it look like?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 11:14:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 11:04:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


Here is a quick 3:

The Christian God is supposed to be perfect, but only flawed beings who are missing something that they need or want have incentive to create or design. If God was lonely, or bored (which makes no sense because why would a perfect being have petty ape like feelings) then it doesn't really follow that he is perfect. I mean, why would't a perfect being be satisfied with his perfection instead of creating out of a need or want?

If God exists, then he is omniscient and he is free at the same time. Now, an omniscient being must know exactly what actions he will and will not do in the future. Therefore, if one knows that he will do an action, then it is impossible for him not to do it, and if one knows that he will not do an action, then it is impossible for him to do it. Thus, a contradiction.


If the Christian God exists, then he is both all just and all merciful. However, An all just judge treats every offender with exactly the severity that he or she deserves. An all merciful judge treats every offender with less severity than he or she deserves. So these properties don't mix.

The one that really interest me the most is the second one. Correct me if I am wrong but I think you are saying if God knows he will do something than he cannot do something different which would show he is not all-powerful. Basically saying if God wanted to change his mind and do something different he couldn't right? But the only reason to change your mind would be a being who was ignorant of something and acquires some sort of new reasoning.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 11:18:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 11:12:28 PM, Oryus wrote:


That's kind of a silly question though isn't it? If theists could agree on the nature of god, perhaps I would have an answer for you.

I swear. I try to see the world through the eyes of theists all the time. I rarely ever meet theists who honestly try to look at the world through the eyes of an atheist. You're asking me right now if I believe science can prove something I don't believe exists.

Here's a question for you: Can you picture religion without faith? If so, what would it look like?

If I said that God is a maximally great being, could you give me an answer then?

I was asking if God exist, would science be able to prove or disprove it?

I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist quite honestly.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 11:21:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 11:18:23 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/22/2012 11:12:28 PM, Oryus wrote:


That's kind of a silly question though isn't it? If theists could agree on the nature of god, perhaps I would have an answer for you.

I swear. I try to see the world through the eyes of theists all the time. I rarely ever meet theists who honestly try to look at the world through the eyes of an atheist. You're asking me right now if I believe science can prove something I don't believe exists.

Here's a question for you: Can you picture religion without faith? If so, what would it look like?

If I said that God is a maximally great being, could you give me an answer then?

I was asking if God exist, would science be able to prove or disprove it?

I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist quite honestly.

hahahah!! >.<
Weird. I don't need any faith at all to be an atheist. I was born an atheist without faith and an atheist without faith I remain. I think yer doing it wrong.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 11:22:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 11:14:56 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/22/2012 11:04:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


Here is a quick 3:

The Christian God is supposed to be perfect, but only flawed beings who are missing something that they need or want have incentive to create or design. If God was lonely, or bored (which makes no sense because why would a perfect being have petty ape like feelings) then it doesn't really follow that he is perfect. I mean, why would't a perfect being be satisfied with his perfection instead of creating out of a need or want?

If God exists, then he is omniscient and he is free at the same time. Now, an omniscient being must know exactly what actions he will and will not do in the future. Therefore, if one knows that he will do an action, then it is impossible for him not to do it, and if one knows that he will not do an action, then it is impossible for him to do it. Thus, a contradiction.


If the Christian God exists, then he is both all just and all merciful. However, An all just judge treats every offender with exactly the severity that he or she deserves. An all merciful judge treats every offender with less severity than he or she deserves. So these properties don't mix.

The one that really interest me the most is the second one. Correct me if I am wrong but I think you are saying if God knows he will do something than he cannot do something different which would show he is not all-powerful. Basically saying if God wanted to change his mind and do something different he couldn't right? But the only reason to change your mind would be a being who was ignorant of something and acquires some sort of new reasoning.

"But the only reason to change your mind would be a being who was ignorant of something and acquires some sort of new reasoning."

Exactly, you just proved my point. It is logical that a non-omniscient being would change his mind, and an all knowing being could not change his mind.

However, if God is supposed to be free then he could change his mind creatively without need for being ignorant. However, God could never be creative because he knows everything all ready. Lets say he he knows X because it's a fact that it's going to happen, he can't be creative and change it, because if he did, that would mean he didn't really know X was going to happen and he wouldn't be omniscient.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 11:25:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 11:18:23 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/22/2012 11:12:28 PM, Oryus wrote:


That's kind of a silly question though isn't it? If theists could agree on the nature of god, perhaps I would have an answer for you.

I swear. I try to see the world through the eyes of theists all the time. I rarely ever meet theists who honestly try to look at the world through the eyes of an atheist. You're asking me right now if I believe science can prove something I don't believe exists.

Here's a question for you: Can you picture religion without faith? If so, what would it look like?

If I said that God is a maximally great being, could you give me an answer then?

I was asking if God exist, would science be able to prove or disprove it?

I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist quite honestly.

If I'm omniscient, and I know that I'm going to go to the store at 5:45, then there are two options:

1. I go to the store at 5:45, and this falls in line with me being omniscient.
2. I freely decide to go to the store at 5:46, and this doesn't fall in line with me being omniscient, because I would have been wrong about going to the store at 5:45.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 11:28:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 11:21:13 PM, Oryus wrote:


hahahah!! >.<
Weird. I don't need any faith at all to be an atheist. I was born an atheist without faith and an atheist without faith I remain. I think yer doing it wrong.

From a naturalistic standpoint how would you believe that consciousness arose from unconscious material? Or living organisms came from non living matter? How do you explain our ability to make free choices if we emerged from a material, deterministic, process beyond our control? Or what about things like the fine tuning of the universe? According to Roger Penrose the odds of our universe's low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:10^10(123). The odds of our solar system being formed instantly by the random collision of particles is about 1:10^10(60). I don't have enough faith to believe that all those things came to happen given a naturalistic world view.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 11:32:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 9:55:06 PM, Ontos wrote:
What are the major reasons against affirming belief in theism?
Don't have to argue for them just yet. I was just wondering... :-)

Everybody has their own religion. They all serve the same purpose on an individual level.
The mind can be conditioned in specific ways just by repeatedly affirming certain idealistic thoughts. There is nothing really wrong with theism - everybody follows some sort of religious ideals in their own individual way. Bigger religions like Christianity or Islam, for example, are just based on teachings, prayer, and reaffirmations, whether at a communal service or individually. Doing these things repeatedly for any length of time will begin to imprint the perception of that particular reality and those ideas, perhaps exponentially given the length of time is expanding.

Because of this, I know that I am able to basically reaffirm things to myself in my own way to create my own perception of reality, my own set of morals, and my own ways. But my thoughts are only derived from the world around me, so naturally I will adopt certain, if not all morals and behaviors from the religious content surrounding me.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 11:34:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 11:22:59 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


"But the only reason to change your mind would be a being who was ignorant of something and acquires some sort of new reasoning."

Exactly, you just proved my point. It is logical that a non-omniscient being would change his mind, and an all knowing being could not change his mind.

However, if God is supposed to be free then he could change his mind creatively without need for being ignorant. However, God could never be creative because he knows everything all ready. Lets say he he knows X because it's a fact that it's going to happen, he can't be creative and change it, because if he did, that would mean he didn't really know X was going to happen and he wouldn't be omniscient.

I think the opposite. I think if God could change his mind it would show he is not all powerful. If he wanted to change his mind it would show ignorance and he would not be maximally great. There is no contradiction between saying God is omniscient and saying he cannot change his mind.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 11:37:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 11:25:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


If I'm omniscient, and I know that I'm going to go to the store at 5:45, then there are two options:

1. I go to the store at 5:45, and this falls in line with me being omniscient.
2. I freely decide to go to the store at 5:46, and this doesn't fall in line with me being omniscient, because I would have been wrong about going to the store at 5:45.

If you were omniscient you would not have acquired new reasoning to go at 5:46
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 11:43:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 11:28:59 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/22/2012 11:21:13 PM, Oryus wrote:


hahahah!! >.<
Weird. I don't need any faith at all to be an atheist. I was born an atheist without faith and an atheist without faith I remain. I think yer doing it wrong.

From a naturalistic standpoint how would you believe that consciousness arose from unconscious material? Or living organisms came from non living matter? How do you explain our ability to make free choices if we emerged from a material, deterministic, process beyond our control? Or what about things like the fine tuning of the universe? According to Roger Penrose the odds of our universe's low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:10^10(123). The odds of our solar system being formed instantly by the random collision of particles is about 1:10^10(60). I don't have enough faith to believe that all those things came to happen given a naturalistic world view.

"From a naturalistic standpoint how would you believe that consciousness arose from unconscious material?"

Natural Selection. The problem is you assume that intelligence is required for natural mechanisms, but in reality, natural mechanisms are required for intelligence.

"How do you explain our ability to make free choices if we emerged from a material, deterministic, process beyond our control?"

You assume we actually have conscious free will, instead of acknowledging the implications of neuroscience.

"Or what about things like the fine tuning of the universe?"

Only 0.46% of the volume of Earth is capable of supporting human life, and the amount of time humans have been on this planet when compared to comic timescales are barely even a fraction of a measurable speck. 99.9999% of the observable universe is hostile to life, and over 99% of the species that lived on this planet have gone extinct. Real fine tuned..

"According to Roger Penrose the odds of our universe's low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:10^10(123). The odds of our solar system being formed instantly by the random collision of particles is about 1:10^10(60). I don't have enough faith to believe that all those things came to happen given a naturalistic world view."

1. Theism requires faith, not Atheism, you have it backwards. You assume the physical constants could have been different, or could be, with no proof. You also assume that some other form of life besides carbon life that we are used too couldn't have come about in a completely different universe.

2. Any 13 card hand you get, the odds of you getting that hand are 1 in 635 ,000,000,000. Does that mean that every 13 card hand you get no matter what, was from a deck that was stacked, simply because the odds of you getting that exact hand are 1 and 635,000,000,000? This is outrageous logic you are advocating. If you walk into a waiting room, the odds of you being there with those exact people out of anyone that could have been there massively slim. None of this equals planning or intent at all, you are simply twisting the implications of probability.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 11:44:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 11:37:46 PM, stubs wrote:
At 4/22/2012 11:25:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


If I'm omniscient, and I know that I'm going to go to the store at 5:45, then there are two options:

1. I go to the store at 5:45, and this falls in line with me being omniscient.
2. I freely decide to go to the store at 5:46, and this doesn't fall in line with me being omniscient, because I would have been wrong about going to the store at 5:45.

If you were omniscient you would not have acquired new reasoning to go at 5:46

In naturalism, one does not attempt to foresee the future, rather it is more based on looking back and knowing everything happened for the bigger cause, and was always meant to be that way. We can speculate, yes, but when it comes down to it, what has happened has happened for reasons that, in naturalism, are attributed to biology. It's recognizing universal omniscience but not attributing it to a God or an individual.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts