The Atheist Contradiction and Reasoning

[Wotan]

When you draw a royal flush was intelligence at work?

 

[Fatihah]

When you draw a royal flush was intelligence at work?

Response: Yes. I can't draw a flush without picking a card. I can't choose to pick a card(s) or know what a royal flush is to begin with, without using my intelligence. Can you arrange your room to look neat without using your intelligence? Can you paint a picture of a person without using your intelligence?

 

[DarkSun]

If you were to ask an atheist about how the universe, life itself, and all that exists came to be, the answer would be scientific. Scientific study requires a key element, observation. And after extensive study through observation, atheists conclude that there is no God, or rather, there is no proof that God exist. Thus they conclude, through scientific study and observation, the origin of the universe, life itself, and all that exist. This being the case, how does an atheist view emotions? Love, happiness, sadness, laughter, etc. Where are these emotions derived from? What is it's origin? For if we look through a microscope, we can see atoms, microorganisms, etc. But you can not see sadness. Or happiness. Or love. So where do these emotions originate from and derive from, if not the human soul? And how do you know where it's derived from, if you can't see it? This alone should demonstrate that it's origin and where emotions are derived from is not visible as well, thus the human soul. Many atheists say that there is no proof of God because no one can see God. Yet they have no delay in accepting that humans have emotions, yet they can not look inside any body and see emotions. A contradiction. How do atheists explain this?

Then, the atheist denies the idea of intelligent design. That the beautiful design, perfect detail, and consistancy in which things were created was not done by intelligent design. In other words, it was done by chance. Let's look deeper. When you walk into a room, and see things placed and organized in a nice manner, do you accept that it happened by chance? That something beautifully organized and arranged, can be created without intelligence? Take the Mona Lisa painting for example. Do you believe it possible to create the Mina Lisa by chance? That someone can throw or splatter paint on paper, and the end result can be a beautiful piece of art work like the Mina Lisa? Or would it be more reasonable to believe that the Mona Lisa was created by intelligent design?Do you accept that something by chance or unintelligence, can create something intelligent? Is it not more logical, that something made of intelligence can only be created by intelligence? Thus the intelligence and conformity in the creation of the universe, life itself, and all that exists, had to be created by intelligent design?

What you're trying to attack (and failing) isn't atheism - it's science. What's more, neither atheism nor science ever claim that life came about by chance. They claim that life came about through certain fundamental laws regarding the universe and everything therein, not necessarily at random. Although that depends who you ask. One last thing: Intelligent Design is not science. It's a personal opinion that anyone is free to disagree with if they wish. Science doesn't deal with the subjective, but only what can be objectively proven, so of course Intelligent Design is going to be rejected when talking from a purely scienific standpoint.

 

[Fatihah]

What you're trying to attack (and failing) isn't atheism - it's science. What's more, neither atheism nor science ever claim that life came about by chance. They claim that life came about through certain fundamental laws regarding the universe and everything therein, not necessarily at random. Although that depends who you ask. One last thing: Intelligent Design is not science. It's a personal opinion that anyone is free to disagree with if they wish. Science doesn't deal with the subjective, but only what can be objectively proven, so of course Intelligent Design is going to be rejected when talking from a purely scienific standpoint.

Response: Which makes such a rejection illogical when scientists themselves create or design by intelligence. So to have those same scientists reject intelligent design or to say that science rejects intelligent design is illogical and contrary to science to begin with.

 

[nrg]

Response: Yes. I can't draw a flush without picking a card. I can't choose to pick a card(s) or know what a royal flush is to begin with, without using my intelligence.

Ok, so if I ask a child who has absolutely no idea of what poker is to pick two cards, and then I who has played quite a few poker games and studied the theory and mathematics of it stubbornly also pick two cards, and none of us ever fold, would I always get better cards on the flop?

Can you arrange your room to look neat without using your intelligence? Can you paint a picture of a person without using your intelligence?

Oh man, philosophy so ain't your game. You've started a runaway metaphor, but you stopped at paintings even though the reasoning doesn't stop at paintings.

You're arguing that a tidy room has to have a person who cleaned it, otherwise the pattern cannot form. You're aslo arguing that a painting proves there was a person who painted it, otherwise the pattern the paint strokes form couldn't have formed. If we apply this reasoning as a universal truth, then every single pattern has a person behind it. Every duck has a person behind it, who thought out what the duck would look like and crafted it, and every single boulder has a person behind it who (presumably) carved the boulder to it's current form. Every single wave has a person behind it who carefully manipulated the water to form into a swirling, majestic wave. And so on.

There are no ways to stop a runaway metaphor, wich is why metaphors aren't really that useful in philosophy to form the basis of an argument. They are useful for making information easier to process for people who don't understand the argument, but they are not a good foundation for a solid argument.

 

[Autodidact]

Response: And once again, you dodge the question. Again, the question is, can you create a pattern which repeats itself without using your intelligence? If so, how.

Well, I answered your other question, and you haven't even taken a stab at mine, but yes, I think so.

 

[McBell]

Again, the question is, can you create a pattern which repeats itself without using your intelligence? If so, how.

You sure have.

Pretty much every time you post:

Response: There's a statement. Where's the proof?
​

 

[JMorris]

the question remains, if patterns & intelligence can only be created by an intelligent deity, then who/what created that intelligent deity?

 

[Autodidact]

Response: Then if a human can't, then you have no logical reasoning in assuming that a pattern which repeats itself can be created without intelligence.

Once again, your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Humans can't fly, either, but birds can. The fact that people can't do it (although in fact we can) does not mean it can't be done.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you were to ask an atheist about how the universe, life itself, and all that exists came to be, the answer would be scientific. Scientific study requires a key element, observation. And after extensive study through observation, atheists conclude that there is no God, or rather, there is no proof that God exist. Thus they conclude, through scientific study and observation, the origin of the universe, life itself, and all that exist. This being the case, how does an atheist view emotions? Love, happiness, sadness, laughter, etc. Where are these emotions derived from? What is it's origin? For if we look through a microscope, we can see atoms, microorganisms, etc. But you can not see sadness. Or happiness. Or love. So where do these emotions originate from and derive from, if not the human soul? And how do you know where it's derived from, if you can't see it? This alone should demonstrate that it's origin and where emotions are derived from is not visible as well, thus the human soul. Many atheists say that there is no proof of God because no one can see God. Yet they have no delay in accepting that humans have emotions, yet they can not look inside any body and see emotions. A contradiction. How do atheists explain this?

Then, the atheist denies the idea of intelligent design. That the beautiful design, perfect detail, and consistancy in which things were created was not done by intelligent design. In other words, it was done by chance. Let's look deeper. When you walk into a room, and see things placed and organized in a nice manner, do you accept that it happened by chance? That something beautifully organized and arranged, can be created without intelligence? Take the Mona Lisa painting for example. Do you believe it possible to create the Mina Lisa by chance? That someone can throw or splatter paint on paper, and the end result can be a beautiful piece of art work like the Mina Lisa? Or would it be more reasonable to believe that the Mona Lisa was created by intelligent design?Do you accept that something by chance or unintelligence, can create something intelligent? Is it not more logical, that something made of intelligence can only be created by intelligence? Thus the intelligence and conformity in the creation of the universe, life itself, and all that exists, had to be created by intelligent design?

Were you to ask this atheist, you'd have a slightly different scientific answer: How did it all come to be? I don't know. I wasn't there to observe it when it happened.
I merely presume that all we see has natural origins, since that has worked well so far. This is a speculative position based upon lack of evidence for the supernatural.

When you claim that chance is inadequate to the task of creating all the complexities & intricate relationships, I think that you don't give chance enuf credit. By analogy, consider that laws governing behavior of an ideal gas are based upon nothing but chance encounters of individual molecules, their properties, & physical laws. Yet these basic properties yield elegant emergent properties on a grand scale. Why can't life be the result of a similar stochastic process involving gazillions of interactions of particles which obey the physical laws we see? This seems more plausible than positing a single supreme being to speak it all into existence for the purpose of worshiping him/her.

 

[Fatihah]

Ok, so if I ask a child who has absolutely no idea of what poker is to pick two cards, and then I who has played quite a few poker games and studied the theory and mathematics of it stubbornly also pick two cards, and none of us ever fold, would I always get better cards on the flop? Oh man, philosophy so ain't your game. You've started a runaway metaphor, but you stopped at paintings even though the reasoning doesn't stop at paintings.

You're arguing that a tidy room has to have a person who cleaned it, otherwise the pattern cannot form. You're aslo arguing that a painting proves there was a person who painted it, otherwise the pattern the paint strokes form couldn't have formed. If we apply this reasoning as a universal truth, then every single pattern has a person behind it. Every duck has a person behind it, who thought out what the duck would look like and crafted it, and every single boulder has a person behind it who (presumably) carved the boulder to it's current form. Every single wave has a person behind it who carefully manipulated the water to form into a swirling, majestic wave. And so on.

There are no ways to stop a runaway metaphor, wich is why metaphors aren't really that useful in philosophy to form the basis of an argument. They are useful for making information easier to process for people who don't understand the argument, but they are not a good foundation for a solid argument.

Response: In other words, you don't have an answer as to whether you can design a room to look neat without intelligence, and if so, how. A simple yes or no question goes unanswered. Thanks anyway.

 

[Fatihah]

Well, I answered your other question, and you haven't even taken a stab at mine, but yes, I think so.

Response: So you don't know for sure. Thanks anyway.

 

[Fatihah]

Once again, your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Humans can't fly, either, but birds can. The fact that people can't do it (although in fact we can) does not mean it can't be done.

Response: I never stated it was, thus your point has no relevance.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

If you were to ask an atheist about how the universe, life itself, and all that exists came to be, the answer would be ...

You speak as if atheists are all in agreement on something (other than the nonexistence of God). This is a base generalization.

Then, the atheist denies the idea of intelligent design.

Why would you expect someone that does not believe in the existence of God to embrace an unsupported claim about something He is supposed to have done?

Thus the intelligence and conformity in the creation of the universe, life itself, and all that exists, had to be created by intelligent design?

You are assuming your own answer. This is a classic example of begging the question (often referred to as circular argument).

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Fatihah, don't know if you missed it or not but we're still waiting...

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...s/96073-fatihah-show-me-your-proof-islam.html

 

[linwood]

If you were to ask an atheist about how the universe, life itself, and all that exists came to be, the answer would be scientific.

Right out of the box your first sentence destroys any point you might have been trying to make.

Nice job!

 

[Luminous]

Response: The existence of Allah(God) can easily be proven. About as easy as proven that 2+2 is 4. Yet I, nor anyone for that matter, is responsible for the clear denial of atheists to the fact. If you're interested of proof that there is a God, perhaps you can post on similar threads on the topic or create a new one, and I 'll be happy to address you there.

and Jupiter exists because there is lightning...such logical fallacies are for fools.

 

[McBell]

Response: The existence of Allah(God) can easily be proven. About as easy as proven that 2+2 is 4. Yet I, nor anyone for that matter, is responsible for the clear denial of atheists to the fact. If you're interested of proof that there is a God, perhaps you can post on similar threads on the topic or create a new one, and I 'll be happy to address you there.

Interesting.
Your above quoted post is timestamped 04-13-2010, 08:00 AM
The thread you specifically requested was made 04-14-2010, 08:09 PM.

Your last activity was today 4/22/2010 at 3:30 PM.

Since I am not the only one wondering why you are so scared of this thread:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...s/96073-fatihah-show-me-your-proof-islam.html
​

I wonder what your Allah thinks of liars.
I also wonder what your Allah thinks of those who lie in the name of Allah.

Perhaps you can address these two things in this thread, since you are to scared to even enter into the one you specifically requested be made.

 

[nrg]

Response: I never stated it was, thus your point has no relevance.

Why do you keep running away from my posts?

Do you understand now that "every painting has a painting, every building has a builder, thus everything must have a designer" is a runaway metaphor and thus a logical fallacy?

 

[Fatihah]

You speak as if atheists are all in agreement on something (other than the nonexistence of God). This is a base generalization.


Why would you expect someone that does not believe in the existence of God to embrace an unsupported claim about something He is supposed to have done?


You are assuming your own answer. This is a classic example of begging the question (often referred to as circular argument).

Response: None to which answers any question posed in the OP. The reason is obvious. Thanks anyway.