AllTruthRevealed
New Member
Why are atheists always imagining unicorns, fairies, flying teapot monsters, yet have difficulty with the reasonable and logical certainty of a Creator?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists and the Pink Elephants
- Thread starter AllTruthRevealed
- Start date
not sure if trolling
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Because imagination has no bearing on validity. If it did, my list of people I wish would explode would be a lot shorter by now.
On the off chance you're not a troll:
Atheists often equate the likelihood of the existence of God with other equally improbable things, like fairies, unicorns, and Santa Claus, that everyone, including theists, have no problem seeing as improbable. The point is that unicorns don't exist, and it's pretty ridiculous to believe that they do, and that the belief in God is really not much different.
But is there some significance that fairies, unicorns and Santa Claus are chosen over other imaginary beings? Is this an inherent bias that has yet to be addressed? Hmm.
Noaidi
slow walker
Yes, we are quite fundamentalist in our choice of imaginary beings!
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
Even I am guilty of calling God a flying spaghetti monster. Although in hindsight, I can see this is a bit of a strawman of the arguments for God. As Santa clause, pink unicorns and flying teapot monsters are actually just chimeras word-combinations abstracted by the imagination, but God is more of a logical necessity to explain creation. If you believe in creation then you have two alternatives
1) It came into being out of pure chance from seeming nothingness
2) God created it
What seems more logical of the two options? Well we know that 1 never happens. We have never seen anything come from nothing and we have never seen anything assemble itself into a Monsa Lisa, jumbo jet or a computer. As for 2. We know that creation always requires an act of a creator. If I see a pot which is for the use of another, I infer a potter as well. Which is the most reasonable out of both? Obviously 2 makes more sense.
I personally do not believe in a creation so I don't have to accept either of the two.
1) It came into being out of pure chance from seeming nothingness
2) God created it
What seems more logical of the two options? Well we know that 1 never happens. We have never seen anything come from nothing and we have never seen anything assemble itself into a Monsa Lisa, jumbo jet or a computer. As for 2. We know that creation always requires an act of a creator. If I see a pot which is for the use of another, I infer a potter as well. Which is the most reasonable out of both? Obviously 2 makes more sense.
I personally do not believe in a creation so I don't have to accept either of the two.
Last edited:
We do?
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
Can you give examples of something coming out of nothing and a pot, Monsa Lisa, jumbo jet or computer building itself?
I don't need to. You made a claim that it never happens yet lack the evidence to prove that it never happens. Just because we aren't aware of it happening does not mean that it doesn't happen
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
The argument is unfalsifiable. Just because I don't know there is an invisible pink unicorn in my room, does not mean there isn't and nor does it mean there is.
We can only base our knowledge on what is observable and draw inferences from that. In our observable reality, indeed we have never seen something come out of nothing or a Monsa Lisa etc build itself.
But you can't go from that to "x never happens". The best we can get is "As far as we know x never happens"
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
Yes, that is fair enough 
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
I have never seen that, but I have seen the Mona Lisa evolve.
The programming code used to create the Mona Lisa image:
0) Setup a random DNA string (application start)
1) Copy the current DNA sequence and mutate it slightly
2) Use the new DNA to render polygons onto a canvas
3) Compare the canvas to the source image
4) If the new painting looks more like the source image than the previous painting did, then overwrite the current DNA with the new DNA
5) repeat from 1
1) Copy the current DNA sequence and mutate it slightly
2) Use the new DNA to render polygons onto a canvas
3) Compare the canvas to the source image
4) If the new painting looks more like the source image than the previous painting did, then overwrite the current DNA with the new DNA
5) repeat from 1
This actually is more an argument that the Monsa Lisa could only be created by a conscious intelligence, because 3) involves a teleological assumption where the route of the evolution of the polygans has already been predetermined. So the polygans are guided by the teleology of the source image itself. Similarly, we argue that evolution has an inherent teleology which guides the material processes to design what is needed for the purpose of a conscious person.
AllTruthRevealed
New Member
Peace Be With You. NO not trolls. Atheists often mistakenly lump 'imaginary things' with the Creator. I would state that when you say that 'unicorns don't exist' it ought to be based on a logical footing . How have you established that 'unicorns' do not exist?
outhouse
Atheistically
can you give me a example of anything that can be scientifically attributed to a creator "with credibility" ????????????????????????????????????
anything at all?
outhouse
Atheistically
circular reasoning.
just because we cant prove imaginative things do not exist, does not mean they do.
thats why they call it, imagination.