Posts by towerwatchman

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

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.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

Finkelstein

If you cant define what a god is then there is no god.

God is omniscient, omnipresent, immutable, omnipotent and holy.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

towerwatchman

to ctrwtf

What difference does this make in the life of an atheist?

Only an atheist can answer that.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

towerwatchman

To Anders Andersen

You got your definition of atheism wrong and are thus creating a straw man argument. Only by coming up with your own (false) definition of atheism, you can make your argument. However, almost all of the people who call themselves atheist do not claim to know there are no gods, they simply do not believe in any gods. Your argument applies to almost nobody. Redefining the label I apply to myself doesn't suddenly change my (lack of) beliefs into a claim of knowledge.

Stepping from strong atheism to soft atheism; soft espouses “lack of belief” or “absence of belief” which is an illogical position to take if one is making a conscious decision not to belief. Under such a worldview, a newborn, dog or cat qualifies as a soft atheist, for they lack belief in God also.

Nice rookie try.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

towerwatchman

To doubtful 1799

I think you'll find atheists in general (though I can't speak for all, because like all groups there will be differences in individual outlook) don't see themselves as denying the existence of God in an absolute sense as you claim, they merely say they don't have enough evidence at this point in time to accept the existence of one, not that their couldn't possibly be one, or that they wouldn't accept the evidence for one if such evidence came to light.

That would be Agnostic.

The term "atheist" is a very loose one and is a generalisation for a broad range of ideas that are subtle different. I don't think people who call themselves athiests would limit themselves or define themselves to fit YOUR particular definition.

I am defining them by the word they choose to define them.

Atheist =

A = negative, denial

Theist = God.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

towerwatchman

To venus

To claim a negative in the absolute, one would need omniscience.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

towerwatchman

To: onthewayout.

Give me a break. I am willing to make that absolute statement even though I don't have "unlimited knowledge of this universe." First may we define our terms. The term "flying spaghetti monster" comes literally from a satirical open letter written by Bobby Henderson in 2005 and started a social movement that promotes a light-hearted view of religion and opposes the teaching of intelligent design and creationism in public schools. It is not any lifeform that seems to sort of look like spaghetti, but rather it is the silly "god" made of spaghetti that created the universe. I am confident there is no god, but for most atheists, confidence that all the specifically defined gods do not exist is sufficient. If you think it is self defeating to say there is absolutely no flying spaghetti monster, then you might expect it to show up one day. I am positive that it won't, and equally positive that "God" won't either. I would love to be eating my words and "he" shows me up for taking such a self defeating stand.

The argument commits the fallacy of false analogy. Just because the issues at hand are alike in trivial ways it does not make it relevant to the conclusion. The creator of a false analogy is saying, "Accept my argument because of these superficial similarities between what you are proposing and my fictitious comparator." And here is the gap.

At its core the FSM argument is two fold.

(1) the chance of God existing is extremely low – similar to that of a Flying Spaghetti Monster;

(2) there is no evidence that God exists, just like there is no evidence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

When it comes to the existence of God let’s see how low is low. What evidence is there for God's existence? The Christian points to Genesis and the universe as proof that God exist. The atheist says no and points to slime plus time as proof of the existence of life. But what the atheist fails to notice is that 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. Which would a cognitive individual put his money on?

There is no evidence for the existence of God. Historically, the life of Jesus of Nazareth affirms the existence of God. No scholar, Christian or secular, denies the life, teachings, or extraordinary reports about Jesus.

Belief in God

(1) Prevalent among all peoples of all times. Atheism is very rare; even atheists admit this.

(2) There are many sophisticated philosophical arguments for God’s existence.

(3) The Christian God is a coherent explanation of why something exists rather than nothing, why logic is prescriptive and universal, why morality is objective, and why religion is ubiquitous.

(4) Belief in God is rationally satisfying.

Belief in Flying Spaghetti Monsterism

(1) Believed by no one. Even the so-called advocates of the FSM do not really believe that it exists.

(2) There are no technical philosophical arguments for the FSM. Actually, there are no technical arguments of any kind for the FSM.

(3) Even those who sarcastically espouse that the FSM exists don’t really believe that the FSM exists, nor do they think that the FSM is a coherent explanation for finite contingent being, logic, morality, beauty, etc.

(4) No one really believes in the FSM, but even if they did, it would not be rationally satisfying.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

towerwatchman

To Finkelstein

Anything can be imagined but you have to have evidence to make it into reality, there has been no evidence of god(s) but only hearsay drawn out imagination and ignorance of the world in which we live. There is a reason why there haven't been any new envisioned gods in the last 1000 years or more before BCE there were hundreds. The reason why is because human ignorance is an indefensible fact.

Let’s see what takes more faith?

When it comes to the existence of God lets see how low is low. What evidence is there for God's existence? The Christian points to Genesis and the universe as proof that God exist. The atheist says no and points to slime plus time as proof of the existence of life. But what the atheist fails to notice is that 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. Which would a cognitive individual put his money on?

DNA is a code, communicates the instructions for assembling proteins, but the cell needs proteins to transcribe and translate the information. 1.3 billion bits of information, placed in precise order. The probability of placing 15 base pairs in the right sequence is 1x 10 20 power. The only known cause that can do this is intelligence. My faith is based on logic, reason, and proven facts.

Yours, we are the byproduct of slime plus time. A cosmic accident that blindly evolved over time. Even though the evidence prove that this is an impossibility, you take it by faith.

There is no evidence for the existence of God. Historically, the life of Jesus of Nazareth affirms the existence of God. No scholar, Christian or secular, denies the life, teachings, or extraordinary reports about Jesus.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

towerwatchman

To Rainbow Troll

Empirically speaking, theism could never be totally refuted since, as you pointed out, no one is omniscient.
However, putting that aside for a moment, there are certain logical reasons that the theist God could not exist. Some of the attributes of this alleged being are impossible. Take omnipotence as an example. Is God able to create something indestructible, that not even he could destroy or uncreate? Whether you answer yes or no, his omnipotence is refuted. Or what about his omniscience? Can the theist God ask a question that even he can't answer? If he can, he is not omniscient. If he cannot, he is not omnipotent.

Yes or no are both wrong answers. Why limit my choices to two only?

Same as can God create a rock so big He cannot carry it.

If something is self-contradicting it is absolutely impossible. The absolutely impossible may also be called the intrinsically impossible because it carries its impossibility within itself, instead of borrowing it from other impossibilities which in their turn depend upon others. It has no “unless” clause attached to it. It is impossible under all conditions and in all worlds and for all agents.

All agents here include God Himself. His Omniscience means having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight and always possessing universal or complete knowledge, therefore as it applies to us, knew exactly how He was going to create us and all the possible choices we make and the outcomes before He created us. You may attribute miracles to God but not nonsense. Yes there is no limit to His knowledge. If you chose to say “God can gives you free will to choose and at the same time say that God knew exactly what choice you will make from your birth to your death, before you were born, you have succeeded in saying nothing about God, because meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words “God can”. It remains true that all things are possible with God, the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities.

It is impossible for God to carry out both mutually exclusive alternatives, not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

Is God omnibenevolent; a being of pure love? But who could he have loved before he created the Son and with him everyone else?

Suggest you brush up on your knowledge of Christianity. The Father , Son, and HS are all eternal beings.

More importantly, if this God was all alone in the beginning, how could he have developed a language that would have allowed him to conceptualize, reason and so be capable of creating a universe? Language is a social phenomena. A single, eternal God could not develop a language and without language, conceptual thought, reasoning, mathematics - everything this God would need to create anything - would be impossible for him.

Why, again following Christianity God the Son spoke creation into being. We as humans communicate via language. Why would an all powerful being be limited to language in order to communicate? To communicate one does not need a language but a means of exchanging and expressing ideas.

Did God create the Universe - the universe being defined mathematically as the set of all things existing in space-time? But space-time itself defines existence. A being that that created space-time would have to exist outside of it and therefore, would ipso facto not exist.

Why?

The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe had a beginning. Cause and effect states that everything that begins to exist owes its existence to something prior. Role it back to that point of singularity when the first effect came into existence. Question what is the cause?

The cause of the universe therefore 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.

You see, even though I may never be able to disprove theism using the scientific/empirical method, I can easily refute it using logic alone.

Did not even come close.

315

Atheism = self defeating.

by towerwatchman in

atheism = self defeating.

first may we define our terms.

the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.

towerwatchman

To Scratchme 1010

What a load of crap. Atheism doesn't "denounce" anything. Again, this seems to be based on the premises that (a) Atheists are an organization like the ones theists join, (b) all atheists are somehow united in the same way of thinking as the WT brainwashes people to be, (c) atheists compare notes, get instructions or are aligned with each other and believe the exact same thing (d) atheists are "against" or "anti" something, or (e) we simply refuse to listen to anything other than what reinforces what they believe. All that is just nonsense.

Should take a look at the name on the banner. A-theist

A= against, negative, Theist = God in any form.

Seem to all fit.

Sweetie, it is very simple. We don't need to prove the non existence of God, we don't need to prove anything to you, and for that we don't need a bible, nor a congregation, and certainly not "unlimited knowledge of the universe", whatever that means, anyway to feel confident in pour non-believes. Get over it.

Read the OP, never claimed that Atheist had to prove anything, it is what Atheist claimed by the name they choose.