Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman 315 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Finkelstein

  the odds of the essential elements coming together over time by chance to form the initial building blocks of one cell is a statistical impossibility.

  Not in the acceptance and understanding of molecular biology.

  Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it untrue or irrelevant.

  My faith is based on logic, reason, and proven facts.

  Your faith is based on something you cant even logically define and is notably structured around ancient mythological expressions ( the supernatural )

  When you base your proven facts solely upon beliefs, your facts aren't verifiable.

  Scientifically acquired knowledge and acceptance of that acquired knowledge is based upon observation of physical evidence, not imaginary beliefs, therefore it carries with itself a higher level of perspective reality.
  
• 

  towerwatchman

  To Onager

  They're not responding or defending their position are they? Just another drive by sensationalist Troll twat. if they *were* still here I'd say that an argument that relies on your own special definition of a word is a bad argument.

  That would hold water if I chose the word. It is not my definition of a word, but the definition of the word the Atheist chose to define them.

  If you reverse the OP's definition, so that Theists have absolute knowledge that god does exist then you:

  Theist do not claim absolute knowledge to believe the existence of God. We believe based on the evidence.

  Argument is a good as your choice of adjective that modified Troll.
• 

  towerwatchman

  To cofty

  The problem is you haven't defined the "God" that atheists reject.

  By definition atheist reject all gods. Otherwise they would not be atheist.

  Christians make a lot of specific claims about god. It is possible to show that these claims cannot be reconciled with each other or with reality. Therefore we can say with certainty that the god of Jesus does not exist.

  Again if you make the claim, you have to back it up.

  If you retreat into a very vague form of deism - a common trick of christian apologists - then of course your very modest claims can never be refuted.

  I prefer to debate using science, logic and reason.

  To illustrate - If I said unicorns exist, an a-unicornist could never prove me wrong without perfect knowledge of all the beings - visible and invisible - in the universe. If however I say that a large pink, visible, and noisy unicorn lives in my bathroom then the a-unicornist could prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt.

  Unicorn or flying spaghetti monster, whichever way you mix it, it is still nonsense, that no one, Theist or Atheist would support.
• 

  towerwatchman

  to John_Mann

  True. Every Christian must be an atheist depending on conflicting concepts of God. There are several concepts of God in Christianity that doesn't make any sense at all. The concept of Jehovah is absurd. The calvinist concept of God is absurd. But there are very sophisticated concepts of God in Christianity and outside like the Hindu concept of Brahmam, for example.

  Unity if not uniformity. Yes there many Christian denomination, and they all do not agree on many issues, but they do agree on the essential ones. Does that mean that they are all wrong? No. As to these concepts that are absurd, I wish the people who make such claims care to back it up with something; otherwise it is personal opinion, and in any court room personal opinions are not universal truths.
• 

  towerwatchman

  To John mann
  10 hours ago

  I admit that the several Christian concepts of God are responsible for undefeatable justifications to Atheism.
  Sad but true.
  Atheism is not a conclusion from any formal logical argument.
  Atheism is just a valid denial of absurd concepts of God.

  It is good practice to show some support, even if it is one line. Without support it is just you sharing your personal opinion.
• 

  cofty

  TWM - Your intellectual dishonesty makes conversation impossible.
• 

  towerwatchman

  To freemindfade

  What intelligent designer made god? Oh wait have we established which god we are talking about yet? No? OK

  Who designed the watchmaker?

  The cause of the universe must be a transcendent cause beyond the universe. It must be itself uncaused, because we have seen that an infinite series of causes is impossible. It must transcend space and time, since it created space and time, therefore it must be immaterial and nonphysical. And must be unimaginably powerful since it created all matter and energy and finally and must be a personal being, only a mind could fit the above description of the first cause. And it must be a personal being, because this is the only way to explain how a timeless cause can produce a temporal effect with a beginning like the universe. If the cause is impersonal and sufficient to produce its effect, then if the effect is there the cause must be there also.

  Now if the cause of the universe is permanently there and is timeless, why isn't the universe permanently there as well, why did the universe come into being, why isn't it as permanent as its cause? The answer to the problem must be that the clause is a personal being with free will, therefore His act of creating the universe is independent of any prior conditions; something spontaneous and new.
• 

  towerwatchman

  to freemindfade

  Actually that's what theists say. To believe in god you are making massive assertions about our universe with zero evidence.

  Present the following to give you feel for the delicacy of fine-tuning. The number of sub atomic particles in the entire known universe is set to be around 10 to the 80th power.

  Such numbers are so huge that they are simply incomprehensible.

  1.The weak force, which operates inside the nucleus of an atom, is so finely tuned that an alteration in its value even by one part out of 10 to the hundredth power would have prevented a life permitting universe.

  2. A change in the value of the cosmological constant, drives the acceleration of the universe's expansion, by as little as one part in 10 to the 120th power would have rendered the universe life prohibiting.

  3.Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of that low entropy state existing by chance alone is on the order of one chance out of 10x10x123 a number that is so inconceivable that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement.

  4.The ripples in the universe from the original Big Bang event are detectable at one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of gas - no planets, no life. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist only of large black holes. Obviously, no life would be possible in such a universe.

  5. Gravitational force constant if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry, if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form

  6. Electromagnetic force constant, if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission, if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry

  7. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant, if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support, if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements

  There are approx. 40 constants and qualities that have to be fine tuned, not only within themselves but in relation to each other. The probability that this happened on its own is past impossible. Having an accuracy of even one part out of 10 to the 60th power is like firing a bullet towards the other side of the observable universe 20 billion light years away and nailing nearly a 1 inch target.

  What is the best explanation based on scientific observation. That the universe has a tuner, who keeps it finely tuned vs the atheist who believes this all happened by chance over a large amount of time.

  Which requires more faith?
• 

  Finkelstein

  If natural law is omniscience then natural law must be god.

  ........ problem solved
  
• 

  cofty

  Towerwatchman You have discovered a forum where you can frenetically reiterate all your carefully rehearsed apologetics and copy-paste your favourite apologists.

  The thing is we have heard all of this a thousand times year after year. Some of us used to preach exactly the same stuff.

  You have a style that makes conversation impossible and unfruitful. I don't believe you are as incapable of following a simple argument as you appear. I think you are trying to do far too much at once. You totally miss the point of every single thing people say to you and come back with smart-arse comments that are totally irrelevant to the topic. Is it possible for you to stop that and actually engage in a meaningful conversation?

  Let's go back to your OP.

  You claimed that in order to assert that god does not exist an atheist would need perfect knowledge. Lots of people have explained why you are wrong.

  1 - To be an atheist simply means to not be persuaded that god exists. Literally means "without god". It is not necessary to make a positive claim that god does not exist. Some atheists would go that far - I do - but not all atheists do. If you are going to have a useful conversation with people who disagree with you, you need to try hard to properly represent their actual views.

  2 - You have failed to define what you mean by god. If you leave god undefined so that it might include a very vague version of deism then of course nobody can prove you are wrong. But we both know that is not your position. Once you are honest enough to define god then it does become perfectly possible for atheists to show that the specific god you are preaching does not, or cannot, exist.

  That was the point of my illustration of the unicorn in the toilet which you deliberately misrepresented.

  I am willing to assert that I can prove god does not exist but with two conditions...

  1 - By "god" I mean the god and father of Jesus, the god of christian theism. I mean an all-powerful being who made all things, who is the epitome of goodness and love, who is active in the physical world and who desires a relationship with humans.

  2- By "prove" I mean establish beyond all reasonable doubt.

  This god does not exist. I am more than willing to back that claim up but in the context of this thread my only aim to show that your assertion about atheism being self-refuting is wrong.

  Sadly I doubt that you will take the time to read this carefully and reflect on it.