*[I believe] Atheism is an absurd worldview

[outhouse]

Why atheism is absurd:

Complete non answer out of desperation?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Complete non answer out of desperation?

Considering he did attach that reply to someone who is not an atheist...I hesitate to say desperation, but the assumption is certainly sound (especially since I do believe I stated earlier in this thread that I am not an atheist). But even if I mentioned that on some other thread, there was certainly nothing inherently atheistic about my post that garnered that response, especially the part of asking if "god has a god."

 

[Reflex]

The "what caused god?" argument is something popularized by Richard Dawkins and is recognized even by atheist philosophers as absurd.

The lie that stands out like a magnesium flare in a dark room, in case you didn't notice, is that cosmological argument begins with "everything that exists must have a cause." It does not, and stating it that way makes it easy to refute. It actually begins with "everything that begins to exist has a cause." Whether the universe had a beginning is irrelevant. Aquinas himself recognized this.

That the hairy cucumber would even link to the website is a testimony to the absurdity and intellectual dishonesty of atheism and the lengths it will go to in order to in order to "make a point."

 

[viole]

The "what caused god?" argument is something popularized by Richard Dawkins and is recognized even by atheist philosophers as absurd.

The lie that stands out like a magnesium flare in a dark room, in case you didn't notice, is that cosmological argument begins with "everything that exists must have a cause." It does not, and stating it that way makes it easy to refute. It actually begins with "everything that begins to exist has a cause." Whether the universe had a beginning is irrelevant. Aquinas himself recognized this.

That the hairy cucumber would even link to the website is a testimony to the absurdity and intellectual dishonesty of atheism and the lengths it will go to in order to in order to "make a point."

Are we sure that everything that begins to exist has a cause?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The "what caused god?" argument is something popularized by Richard Dawkins and is recognized even by atheist philosophers as absurd.

It's not absurd, but a very valid question. What caused god? Where did god come from?

Whether the universe had a beginning is irrelevant. Aquinas himself recognized this.

Aquinas was a "philosopher" of very poor quality. He didn't even make a very good observation before deciding what sex acts are normal and "unnatural," or he did make these observations, but was very dishonest about things.

 

[outhouse]

The "what caused god?" argument is something popularized by Richard Dawkins and is recognized even by atheist philosophers as absurd.

Not as absurd as imaginatively claiming any god did ANYTHING at all in any part of nature.

 

[outhouse]

"everything that exists must have a cause."

And intelligent people in academia claim we don't know.


Unlike others who use ancient mens mythology we know is not accurate, that position does not require intellect or education. Only misplaced faith.

 

[outhouse]

"everything that begins to exist has a cause."

So gods do not exist?

Because the mythological gods that do exist, we see did have a cause in ancient mens theology.


Your god does not even exist scientifically, yet you want to attribute creation mythology as credible even though the text are not accurate or even historical

 

[outhouse]

Are we sure that everything that begins to exist has a cause?

Ciao

- viole

Its goes like this.


As far as we can tell a singularity caused this universe, NOT mythology and not reflexes personal theology.


Now the singularity had a cause, but the smart educated person claims we don't know but are looking into it.

 

[Reflex]

Are we sure that everything that begins to exist has a cause?

Ciao

- viole

Is that a philosophical question or a scientific one?

 

[outhouse]

Is that a philosophical question or a scientific one?

Why ask? Both stumps you?

You ask everyone else for the hard answers never once since you have been here answering any yourself.

You know any conclusion you put forth corners you in a place you cannot debate out of.

 

[McBell]

Is that a philosophical question or a scientific one?

Yes.

Though I strongly suspect you will be much better at the philosophical answer than the scientific answer.

Why not give both answers a try?
Or are you, as Outhouse suspects, worried about the corner you will paint yourself into?

 

[McBell]

There is nothing new under the sun.
That doesn't preclude each instance of discovery being something new.

Coming to a conclusion on your own that has already been come to by others is different than merely following the conclusions of others.

 

[Reflex]

You tell me: what has a beginning that does not also have a cause?

Question: If living things are merely a special sort of matter and matter/energy is everywhere in the universe, why is it so strange to hold that life as such is omnipresent and eternal, yet not always recognized?

(I'm guessing that if you answer at all, you will attack the questioner or the questions rather than answering them, answer with "I dunno," or offer a philosophical answer thinking it's scientific--something like random fluctuations in the quantum field, for example.)

 

[outhouse]

You tell me

Another NON answer from you.

Once could you provide a conclusion?

 

[outhouse]

If living things are merely a special sort of matter and matter/energy is everywhere in the universe

Why start off with a no true scotsman ????

why is it so strange to hold that life as such is omnipresent and eternal

because it is not, and eternal life is mythology only

yet not always recognized?

It is recognized as mythology.

 

[ArtieE]

The "what caused god?" argument is something popularized by Richard Dawkins and is recognized even by atheist philosophers as absurd.

What is absurd about that question? Whether God began to exist or has always existed why does he exist instead of not?

 

[Reflex]

What is absurd about that question? Whether God began to exist or has always existed why does he exist instead of not?

"God," by definition, is alone uncaused and cannot not exist so the question doesn't apply. It's like asking what's north of the North Pole.

Shimon Malin, a physicist, says, " The scientific claim that so-called inanimate entities are really lifeless is a statement about the scientific method and not about the entities. In reality there is nothing in the current scientific knowledge that disproves the proposition that the putatively inanimate entities are alive.

"This proposition can only be verified or disapproved through experiences and modes of knowledge that light outside of the methodology of present-day science. . . . If the universe is indeed alive, or "ensouled" as the ancient Greeks put it, this aliveness will not show up in a scientific context."

 

[ArtieE]

"God," by definition, is alone uncaused and cannot not exist so the question doesn't apply. It's like asking what's north of the North Pole.

LOL You can have nothing or you can have God. Provide a reason why there is God instead of nothing. Prove that God must exist instead of not.

 

[savagewind]

Is not a world view of many different gods with many different rules and laws for many different people absurd?
I think it is easier and wiser not to choose than to choose.