Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
I don't think he understands that science is just an objective method humans use to understand the universe. The method had a starting point, though that too was a process, but the facts it's learned about the universe have existed as long as the universe itself. At least in its current state.
"what other logical explanation can you have other than God, "
Argument ad ignorantiam fallacy. So by definition your goddidit claim isn't rational, since any argument that contains or is based on a logical fallacy cannot be asserted as rationally true.
You're a very slow learner, and I mean even by the standards the other Muslim apologists set on here.
quantummechanist "where did that microwave background radiation come from (MBR) and if that came from something else scientific then where did that come from?"
------------------------------------------------------
Knowledge knowledge knowledge knowledge.......deity...........knowledge knowledge knowledge knowledge
Oh look, it's a god of the gaps argument.
I have already said this numerous times, the "God of the gaps" argument is irrelevant before the existence of science. YES science ha a beginning. The "God of the gaps" argument is only valid if i talk about gaps in scientific understanding, which are only relevant within the existence of science. I'm talking about before the existence of science, so thererfore the "God of the gaps" argument is irrelevant in this case.
"I have already said this numerous times, the "God of the gaps" argument is irrelevant before the existence of science. "
On the contrary, that's an asinine claim. the GOTG;s argument refers to a common logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam, this type of informal logical fallacy was understood centuries before humans created and used the modern scientific method.
" The "God of the gaps" argument is only valid if i talk about gaps in scientific understanding, "
Do try not to be so stupid, it refers to the fallacious idea that citing ignorance or the lack of an explanation for something, can be asserted as evidence for a (contrary) claim or belief. It has absolutely nothing to do with science at all, ***you really are embarrassing yourself here again.
"Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence") is a fallacy in informal logic."
"Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argu...
"The history of the study of fallacies begins with Aristotle’s work, On Sophistical Refutations. It is among his earlier writings and the work appears to be a continuation of the Topics, his treatise on dialectical argumentation. Although his most extensive and theoretically detailed discussion of fallacies is in the Sophistical Refutations, Aristotle also discusses fallacies in the Prior Analytics and On Rhetoric. Here we will concentrate on summarizing the account given in the Sophistical Refutations. In that work, four things are worth noting: (a) the different conceptions of fallacy; (b) the basic concepts used to explain fallacies; (c) Aristotle’s explanation of why fallacies can be deceptive; and (d) his enumeration and classification of fallacies."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/#HisFalThe
I don't know what the hell you don't understand. It does not matter where you start. Start with trees, the cosmic background radiation, hamsters, the universe, whatever, and keep asking the question over and over "Where did it come from?" There comes a point where the answer is ...
"WE DON'T KNOW." THAT IS THE ANSWER. You do not get to magically insert your god at this point.
First you must prove that you have a God by defining it. Then you must demonstrate it can create anything at all. Finally you must demonstrate it has universe creating capabilities.
So far you have 5 pages of "God of the Gaps." Is it difficult to see why people do not believe you are 19 years old. You just don't get it.
i have stated previously that science will never prove the existence of God they are totally separate. So we use LOGIC to show GOD exists. What I have said cannot be refuted.
I understand everything you guys are saying, i.e we don't have proof for the existence of God etc, nobody can scientifically prove God exists and the God of the gaps argument is just to fill in gaps in our scientific knowledge, yes i get that.
which is why i specifically said science cannot prove and will never prove Gods existence. yes, science had a beginning so if i say God created matter and antimatter or cmb or whatever, that was BEFORE any science had existed in the first place so there are no gaps in our scientific knowledge before SCIENCE ITSELF EXISTED. that's what I'm trying to say. i use logic to prove God exists. you atheists say "there is no scientific evidence therefore we don't believe". you atheists are a very irrational cohort.
RE: "So we use LOGIC to show GOD exists. "
Please do so. We have been waiting for days.. Nothing uttered from your puffy Botox lips has resembled logic.
"i have stated previously that science will never prove the existence of God "
Nor unicorns, nor mermaids, nor leprechauns, nor garden fairies, nor dragons, nor Griffins, nor the Kraken, nor any other fictional things, do take a look at who you're telling this to.
dear oh dear...
You can lead a dolt to knowledge, but you cannot make him think.
Tin-Man - RE: "You can lead a dolt to knowledge," No ..... you can't. I think they catch fire if they get too close. I am sure we have solved the mystery of Spontaneous Human Combustion.
you're a dolt.
i take in your arguments and logically contradict them, you atheists just assume I'm wrong
if i was ignorant i wouldn't be arguing about your atheist arguments against the existence of God.
i was i would just say "fuck off i believe this because my family does etc". But i am rational and take into account everything.22
RE: "But i am rational and take into account everything"
When?
@Quantum Re: "But i am rational and take into account everything.22"
Ah-Ha! There it is! Now I know why you are having so many problems understanding anything. The answer to life, the universe, and everything is 42.... NOT 22. Wow! No wonder you are so screwed up, you poor child.
@ Tin-Man Re: 42
I don't he is ever going to know that answer. Remember …
Scientists/Atheist read many, many books and feel they still have a lot to learn.
Religious Absolutists barely read one book and feel they know everything.
Thus, that 42 is going to do like a 747.
rmfr
tin-man that's where your'e wrong, I think about it then logically contradict your arguments
I am going to plagiarise that at some point. Very good sir...
He just went full retard...
You sure he weren't full retard when he started?
Ozone layer protecting against asteroids/meteors? Sheesh...
rmfr
They protect us against smaller ones yes, and HARMFUL RADIATION FROM THE SUN, you seem to keep dissing this point
LOL! Well that's fine, what a supreme god you believe in!
What an intellect!
Allows only small asteroids to burn up, but not the big ones that will kill his creations.
Yep, Perfect sense.
*sigh*
Either you're wrong, or your god is an idiot.
the big ones aren't coming toward Earth anyway.....
They are called NEOs. And we are constantly watching them. If any get slightly perturbed, goodbye Homo sapiens.
rmfr
They already have and they will again.
Your point is still bollocks.
"the big ones aren't coming toward Earth anyway....."
Use your brain...
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130214-biggest-asteroid...
"They protect us against smaller ones yes, and HARMFUL RADIATION FROM THE SUN, you seem to keep dissing this point"
I will try and dumb this down for you with bullet points:
1) The formation of the earth's ozone layer can be objectively explained as natural phenomenon, and requires no unevidenced diety be evoked, nor anything supernatural be added to this explanation, Occam's razor applies.
2) Your claim that "godidit" is completely unevidenced, and has no explanatory powers whatsoever.
3) You claimed it protected against asteroids as evidence for a line in your religious book, now you're trying to weasel a caveat in by claiming it only protects against the small harmless ones, does this really need a response for you to see how risible it is?
4) Even if a deity were not entirely redundant when explaining how the ozone layer formed, one would be forced to ponder why it created such a fragile ozone layer to protect us from deadly solar radiation, as this rather begs the question why it created the harmful radiation anyway if it has limitless power knowledge and therefore choice, or why it didn't create an ozone layer we couldn't damage, so claiming an omniscient omnipotent deity created it is laughably irrational, if not rank stupidity.
5) The koran doesn't of course mention the ozone layer at all, you have simply assumed this is what it is referring to, and apart from being a glaring example of your bias in seeing what you want to see in order to reinforce your beliefs about the book, and its origins, this also begs the question why a deity with limitless knowledge and power would communicate in vague cryptic anecdotes, rather then offer concise and unequivocal facts that left nothing open to interpretation.
Yes that was a low point even for his theistic verbiage. The ozone layer protectingagainst asteroids, priceless...
An umbrella is excellent against rain...
... but fuck all good to you during a tsunami.
You see you have nothing to say at all, please refute my argument
There's nothing of substance in your 'argument' to refute...
You've literally reeled off a pile of nonsensical garbage, said you basically don't understand it and therefore god did it.
Why god?
What is god? Define him? Give us a rock solid definition so that it can be tackled.
That's literally like all of us being in an art museum and seeing one amazing painting... no one knows who did it? How they did it? What was used... but you stroll up and say a winged Centaur did it.
And it must be your particular winged Centaur because you've got a really old book that says so.
So give us something solid to refute.
Pages