you atheists say "there is no logical reason to believe in God".
OK, well, what is the logical reason to believe in no God?
Another major problem I have with you atheists is essentially you say "we can explain how the universe came into existence, therefore there MUST be no creator."
That's like saying, " I can explain how this computer was made therefore nobody could have made it".
That doesn't quite logically follow.
Another point I'd like to make as a creationist, I DO NOT DENY ANY SCIENTIFIC PROOF OR REASONING!!!!
You see atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, due to as you say 'a lack of scientific evidence'. However a good counter argument is as follows.
Can science detect anything outside the laws of physics? NO
Therefore can we use science as a means of 'detecting God'? NO
So why use science of a means of 'detecting' God?
It is logical to use examples of how God exists using scientific examples, by NO MEANS is this 'detecting' God , just using scientific examples to show how xyz shows that this couldn't have created itself or occurred by itself etc therefore God must have did it.
Now now, before you anti-creationist, quote on quote "rationalists" are quick to jump into the 'God of the gaps' argument please, what you're doing there is irrationally saying that "no no lets leave God out, that can't be an answer... it's just not possible". That's very irrational.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
servantofAllah,
"OK, well, what is the logical reason to believe in no God?"
There is no celestial deity of any kind in this solar system. No God of any kind has ever done anything godly in scope since the first con man created him to gain power and influence over his superstitious buddies and to enrich himself off of their labors. All such God characters are imaginary.
"you atheists say "there is no logical reason to believe in God".
OK, well, what is the logical reason to believe in no God?
I lack a belief in a god because of lack of evidence, just like giant invisible pink fluffy bunnies.
"Another major problem I have with you atheists is essentially you say "we can explain how the universe came into existence, therefore there MUST be no creator."
I can explain the origin of this universe without requiring a god. I am not saying there is no god, I am stating that god is not needed.
"Can science detect anything outside the laws of physics? NO"
Please define "outside of physics"? My personal definition of physics is that it explains what is observable. So is your god not observable? Actually, it is because theists state that it interacts with our known universe by granting prayer, inflicting plagues and floods. Sadly, when you put prayer to the test, it delivers worse odds than a coin flip.
"Therefore can we use science as a means of 'detecting God'? NO"
Science cannot test the untestable. That is logical.. There is no known method to detect any god, just like there is no known method to detect giant invisible pink fluffy bunnies.
servantofAllah if you can prove a god, please present your proof. That is the issue.
That is the most convoluted attempt at a reversal of the burden of proof I have seen for , oh, two or three days.
I lack the belief in a god or gods. That is all.
If you are claiming there IS a god or gods, then, put your claim up for scrutiny and I will gladly explain the reasons that your belief in that particular deity is misguided,erroneous or flat out silly.
The burden of proof is yours, no amount of word play will change that.
Welcome, servantofAllah.
I am an atheist and I do not beleive there is a god or gods.
The logical reasoning? I have never experienced the presence of an omnipotent being, never seen a person raised from the dead, never seen a flying horse, never understood a prayer to be answered, never witnessed a miracle. I see no "hand of god" in the world around me, I only see the forces of the natural world.
I do not claim to understand how everything in the world comes to be or how it all works, but nobody does. I study history, physics, anthropology, biology, chemistry and yes, even theology to understand some of the world around me. I believe my senses. Why is this not logical?
Science and atheism have nothing to do with each other. I know real scientists who have their faith in god and I know atheists who flatly deny science.
No atheist I know has ever claimed to know how the universe came into existence. There are only theories and hypotheses drawn from observations and measurements of the universe, things we can know, that are used to speculate about things we do not know. But no scientific claim ever ended with the statement "therefore there must be no creator" As you know yourself, proving or disproving any god is not within the bounds of the scientific method.
Using the computer as an analogy for the universe doesn't logically follow. I have assembled several computers of my own. They are mundane everyday objects. However the universe is a unique immense phenomena that challenges our puny understanding at every level, and most especially in regard to its "beginnings". In fact no-one has proof it had a beginning. We can only speculate if there was, or if there was something before the great expansion from the singularity, that demands re-evaluation of our understanding of time and space and reality.
So your counter argument:
"Can science detect anything outside the laws of physics? NO
Therefore can we use science as a means of 'detecting God'? NO"
isnt really a counter argument, because no-one has actually made that argument. I hazard the bet that all atheists here would agree with both statements because science has limits and no-one is using science "as a means to 'detecting God'"
Science makes no claims about gods or detecting gods.
And again, science has nothing to do with atheism.
There are no logical ways of proving the existence of god, either with science or philosophy or theology. Your god is an issue of faith, a belief, a personal experience and no, you can not provide any proof that any of it is tangible to anyone but yourself, or has any relevance for anyone but yourself.
Think about this: if you could absolutely prove, and removed all my doubt, that your god really did exist, what would be the value of my faith in your god? Nothing, I would have no need for faith and I believe, theologically, you will have done me and your god a great disservice. Better you prove your god to me by living a good peaceful tolerant life.
If something cannot be explained by science for the moment, it does not logically follow that there has to be a god to make it so. It just means we dont know. And that is not a sin.
And let me make the point that even though I do not believe in any god or gods, I am still live in humble awe of this universe and everything in it. Its a beautiful and dangerous reality, and for me it requires no gods to increase it's magnificent splendour.
@Servant Re: OP
(Gonna put my two cents worth in here real quick before reading any other replies....)
My very first thought from simply reading the title of your OP was, "What the hell is the logical reason for anybody even WANTING to worship some type of imaginary insecure, narcissistic, egotistical, megalomaniacal, blood-thirsty douche-bag???" Yeah, why are so many people so all-too-eager and disturbingly proud to claim they bow their heads and fall to their knees and grovel at the feet in pathetic displays of "humble" servitude to such a power-hungry and ungrateful man-made concept? Are you poor little theists so incredibly insecure and childishly naive that you are too afraid to accept reality and think for yourselves? Are your lives full of so much doubt and indecision that you must cling so desperately to such an outdated "Invisible Man in the Sky" concept that allows you to avoid taking any responsibility for your actions? How sad.... What a shame.... Even a little child grows up and realizes Santa Clause is not real. When will society grow up and realize the same about their gods?
(Okay, now to go read the other replies...)
A couple of edits made for clarity.
@servantofallah
I have seen no objective evidence that any god or gods exist.
Atheism and science are two separate things. I don't need science to be an Atheist.
I apply xenoview's razor to your any claims that a god exist.
Xenoview's razor
Objective claims requires objective evidence
Based on @servantofAllah's reasoning, he is unable to prove I am not God.
Do you or did you have a mother and father? yes
Have you existed for a finite period of time? yes
Will you live forever? No
Did you cause the universe to exist? no
Are you aware of everything that exists?
Do you know literally everything that happens in this universe and in any other possible universe? NO
How the hell can you be God !!!!!!
What bearing do those questions have on me being God?
@ServantofthebigA Re: Our Divine Lord and Savior Sapporo
Obviously you do not have enough TRUE faith, or Sapporo would reveal himself to you in all his majestic glory! But because you DOUBT the words of His Dee-vined Hole-ee-ness, you shall FOREVER be cursed to wander aimlessly in the shadows of The Blunderworld and NEVER be exposed to the wondrous guiding light of the one and only TRUE savior that is Sapporo! He who works in semi-mysterious ways and knows almost everything. He who is EVERYWHERE at one point or another, yet cannot be gazed upon by the eyes of the blind! He who is moderately powerful (depending on the available wi-fi connection), and can accomplish many miracles within the realm of his imagination! And you DARE to question his pseudo-authority over you as your SUPREME Lord and Savior??? Your unworthy soul will be cast into the Lake of Lemonade beneath the Gumdrop Mountains to tread and drink of its sickly-sweet fluid for all eternity with all the other lost and miserable souls who doubted His INGLORIOUS LOVE for all things chocolate! May Sapporo have mercy on your soul!.... *performs sign of the pretzel across chest and crotch*....
I would reveal myself, but people tend to overreact when they find out they're communicating online with a nudist.
@Sapporo Re: "...communicating online with a nudist."
Quick word of advice. Do NOT attempt frying bacon in the nude. Bad idea.... (and please don't ask me how I know).
One word .. BBQ.
Even better words: Carolina Style Pig Picking.
rmfr
Easy, we always should reject completely unevidenced ideas, especially if they are large claims, and there really is no claim greater than: "an all powerful being" of which all known rules and laws do not apply. Also there is a lot of evidence that most all major religions are a con perpetrated on the masses by the few to help control the masses. So to free ourselves from this con to control people we should reject religion. A very sound and logical reason to not believe in the various god ideas people have come up with.
I have not seen any atheist around here saying that. I certainly disagree with that, rather strongly actually, I firmly believe no one, atheist or not has any evidenced idea of how the universe came into existence, or if it ever "did" come into existence (maybe it has always been around in some form? we don't know?)
any scientific proof and reasoning? really? Even the stuff that runs counter to the various god ideas? Which religion do you believe in? Which "miracles" do you believe in, miracles by definition go against scientific proof and reasoning.
What about quantum physics? What about dark matter? Or such small planck units of time where physics no longer apply? I can think of lots of detection that occurs beyond the tools of known laws of physics.
I do agree there, most all religions define god as being outside of the realm of existence/science/detection the various religions defined their gods that way, not science, not atheist, they put up the "can not be detected" walls not scientist or atheist.
Are you trolling? Really? "therefore god must have did it?" Really? If you can't see how illogical it is to use "therefore god must have did it" for something as unknown as the origin of the universe... ouch, your life must be incredibly confusing to you.
What is irrational is inserting your particular god idea as an "answer all" to everything because... magic, even though the god concept is completely unevidenced.
It is VERY rational to discount any ideas that are completely unevidenced when trying to understand the origin of the universe. There is so much unknown here, you do not start the investigation towards answers with another completely unevidenced and unknown idea. You start with what you do know is likely to be true and real. Something like the force of gravity. Not some completely unevidenced idea that everyone also disagrees about, (like the various god ideas humans have created over the last several thousand years.)
Also why would anyone want to call themselves a servant? Are you really so eager to be an unpaid servant to some "being" you never seen or have any proof of existing?
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Ladies and gentlemen, it is becoming obvious that ServantofAllah is looking more and more like ServantofTrolls. Alas, here we go again.... *heavy sigh*....
The MUST part of the supposedly atheist argument is just a straw man fallacy.
@servantofAllah: you say "we can explain how the universe came into existence, therefore there MUST be no creator."
No I don't. It's you theists who claim to have that knowledge. You say a god did it. But are you sure you've picked the right god? What if the Greeks were right, or the Babylonians, or the Jews, or the Japanese? They've all got creation stories starring their own gods. The fact that there are so many of these creator gods makes me 99.99999% certain that none of them are true.
I haven't a clue where the universe came from. I could say that a god made it, but then I'd have to explain where that god came from. Who made your Allah? If you find out, ask for a refund, because your god's defective.
im saying God get the idea of a specific god out of your mind. c'mon you really think a statue can be considered god (i.e what the greeks believe.
servant, Why are you admonishing Algebe to ‘get the idea of a specific god out of (his) mind” when you have a specific god in yours?
I'm not specifying anything, I'm just saying how can a statue create anything like duhh. Even you know that.
You atheists limit your thinking to science, science, which is without a doubt 100% true without a shadow of a doubt, is NOT omnipotent. It cannot answer moral questions such as "Why do I exist?" "What is the meaning of life?" "what is the purpose of life?" etc. Now before you go all anti-religion on me please listen. Why limit your thinking to science, while its palpable that it is not the answer to all of humanities deepest questions, I'm not necessarily saying look at religion, but what I imply here is that you should not only look at science for all your answers.
I don't know your background whether you are a philosopher or not. But if you don't already, try look more into philosophy.
"You atheists limit your thinking to science, science, which is without a doubt 100% true "
Neither of those claims is true, and I think you mean omniscient not omnipotent. Your questions are appeal to ignorance fallacies if you're using them to make assertions. I don;t think you know what atheism is, and I can't speak for other atheists but your bizarre notions are as far removed from my atheism as can be imagined. Religions gave answered nothing, not one objective answer to anything has ever come from religion, and no objective evidence can be demonstrated for any deity or anything supernatural, which is why I am an atheist.
@servantofAllah: you really think a statue can be considered god
I don't consider anything to be a god. As to what the Greeks, etc., thought, I'm sure they believed their gods were real immortal entities living on Mount Olympus. They expressed their adoration by carving statues, but I don't think they saw the statues themselves as gods, any more than Christians see statues of Jesus as being Jesus.
You shouldn't put yourself above the Greeks. You're just as superstitious as they are. And they had a better excuse, because they didn't have modern science to explain all the natural phenomena attributed to god. You're living in the 21st century, and you're still up to your ears in this god nonsense.
I find that monotheistic people are the most ignorant and disdainful of believers. Although in Greek mythology, deities are petty, Allah is far more malevolent.
servantof Allah ……
This Allah you reference in your forum ID ……
would this be the same Allah who was worshiped at Mecca ? …
along side the other 360 deities worshiped there.... 3 of whom were deemed to be Allahs daughters.....al-Lat ,Al-Uzza & Manat …. also Hubal who ,at various times was considered as Allah's son (or even another personification of Allah himself) …..
…..so is it the same Allah or perhaps another of the same name....?
edit to add link....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_pre-Islamic_Arabia#Deities
Mecca? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...... The Muslims got it wrong. Look to the oldest mosques and ask yourself which way to they face? Mecca is a lie. Petra is the birthplace of Muhammad and all early Mosques attest to this fact as does the description of Muhammad's birthplace in the Quaran. Mecca is not even a close call when it comes to the description in the Quaran. All early mosques face Petra.
Cognostic,
"All early mosques face Petra."
How could they site a mosque to face Petra in ancient times without the use of a GPS system? You might know the general direction of a city a couple hundred miles from you but you will have a hell of a time pointing a building to line up with it with any degree of accuracy.
I guess that explains all ancient structures and travelers that used the stars for guides. It's just not that hard to locate a direction. If a Boy Scout can do it so could ancient man. You would do better attacking the hypothesis. It's not yet on solid ground but it does open up some questions about the origins of the Islamic faith.
https://understandingislam.today/is-mecca-or-petra-islams-true-birthplace/
Cognostic,
"I guess that explains all ancient structures and travelers that used the stars for guides."
You can tell general directions by using the Sun during the day and the moon at night. That is good enough to give you the cardinal directions. If you are in Seoul you can determine where Japan, China, Taiwan, and the Philippines are just by looking at the Sun and the Moon. But can you point directly to Manila without getting the direction confused with Taipei or Shanghai? The next time you are outside point directly to Pyougyang without a compass or a GPS.
Diotrephes, ever heard of trigonometry?
rmfr
Pages