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.
RE: "What valid logical proof can you possibly use to demonstrate god that isn't empirical?"
He. She, It, may very well be empirical. God any evidence for the claim? Happy to look at it. If you want to argue for an empirical god, please do so. I would love to see the evidence.
1. You are only asserting the impossibility of infinite regression. You are not demonstrating it. There is no reason what so ever that one must reach a point of ultimate causation. Even if there were a point, you don't get to magically insert your god. (Classic God of the Gaps fallacy.) We live in a house (local time, local universe, local rules.) Everything we know Breaks down at Planck time. Chaos ensues. Physics no longer works. You are living in this house, in this time, in this system of causality and then attempting to infer what goes on outside of the house based on what is happening in the house. This is just fallacious reasoning. The only thing you can say about the outside is "I don't know."
2. Computer code is a human construction and DNA is naturally occurring. (False Analogy) There is no "code" in DNA. This is an equivocation fallacy. When the word "Code" is used, it is not used with the same meaning as a Morris Code, a Biblical Code, or a Secret code. DNA is chemical interactions. You assert DNA is not naturally existing? Can you prove your assertion. From all we know, DNA is naturally occurring.
3. Consciousness and self awareness are emergent properties of the brain. Damage the brain and you alter consciousness.
Chemical reactions can produce molecules: High School Biology / Chemistry
"Chemical reactions occur when chemical bonds between atoms are formed or broken. The substances that go into a chemical reaction are called the reactants, and the substances produced at the end of the reaction are known as the products. An arrow is drawn between the reactants and products to indicate the direction of the chemical reaction, though a chemical reaction is not always a "one-way street," as we'll explore further in the next section.
For example, the reaction for breakdown of hydrogen peroxide (\text{H}_{2}H
2
H, start subscript, 2, end subscript\text{O}_{2}O
2
O, start subscript, 2, end subscript) into water and oxygen can be written as:
2 \text{H}_{2}2H
2
2, H, start subscript, 2, end subscript\text{O}_{2} \text{(hydrogen peroxide)}O
2
(hydrogen peroxide)O, start subscript, 2, end subscript, left parenthesis, h, y, d, r, o, g, e, n, space, p, e, r, o, x, i, d, e, right parenthesis \rightarrow→right arrow 2\text{H}_{2}\text O \text{(water)}2H
2
O(water)2, H, start subscript, 2, end subscript, O, left parenthesis, w, a, t, e, r, right parenthesis + \text{O}_{2}\text{(oxygen)}O
2
(oxygen)O, start subscript, 2, end subscript, left parenthesis, o, x, y, g, e, n, right parenthesis
In this example hydrogen peroxide is our reactant, and it gets broken down into water and oxygen, our products. The atoms that started out in hydrogen peroxide molecules are rearranged to form water molecules (\text{H}_{2}\text OH
2
OH, start subscript, 2, end subscript, O) and oxygen molecules (\text O_2O
2
O, start subscript, 2, end subscript).
Have you read anything besides a bible?
@Cognostic
RE: "Around here we have the blue universe-creating pixies"
Everybody has his/her own God. Yours is the God of self. And there are millions of Gods. Your addition to the list is amusing though! The pixies have colour= blue and edible! Yum Yum!!!
@ Reedemption
If I only had 50c for every time some retarded diminished intelligence brought this one to the table...I think I will sit back, put me feet up, open my favourite SA shiraz and call;
"Calli! CALLI!...you there? Come on over there's another dope who needs an education...."
*puts on rubber apron, extends umbrella and sits contentedly sipping at glass of lovely shiraz, ignoring the screams and sounds of drowning that erupt"*
@Old man shouts Why don't you stop the evasiveness and counter the argument since the points are stupid? Meanwhile @Cognostic is yet to respond to the rest of my posts. I'm sensing a pattern here lol
@ Reedemption
Not being evasive, being bored with your ignorance. The RNA/DNA has been discussed and your argument debunked and derided many times. Just look up Callissea's posts on the subject and be prepared to do some reading instead of pontificating on a subject you are so obviously ignorant.
It is one of the annoying traits of theist visitors to come to this forum and make wild assertions without looking at the previous forum subjects/replies to see if they can learn anything, so stuffed with their own self importance are they.
Try it, its an education.
@reedemption
"I'm sensing a pattern here"
Yes, the pattern of people who have heard these lame assertions many times, and seen them demolished. You do not bring anything unique or new to the table, you are just spouting catch phrases and words you hope will impress people.
The pattern I get from you is that you are throwing a lot of assertions against the wall in just one post, hoping something will stick. If you want to earn respect, make just one assertion and prove it.
@Redemption: I have been speaking with your god again. He appeared to me on a toilet turd and wanted me to let you know that you need to take communion this weekend. Don't forget. The wafers have already been bought and if you aren't thee the priests won't have anything to do but eat them themselves.
-------------------------------------------
If we take those statements seriously: Cognostic exists via [his] own volition. That is one powerful monkey!
If you told a cave man he could be holding a little thing that changed colors and you could grunt into it, and far
away his friend could have the same kind of grunt thing, he would most likely not believe you. But a cave man with an open mind might think there could be a remote possibility, he would not understand it but might imagine it
without understanding it. He might also think no god created any of all the big bangs out there, they just pulse
on and off in infinity. Always have, always will.
How many years ago did we learn our universe is expanding, there are galaxies 13 billion years away we can see, there are other galaxies besides ours?
@wasbutnomore
Well, Just ask the question to yourself and try answering it. Who made God? Maybe a Great God. But then comes the question Who made the Great God? If we still use the same quest that we somehow have to make a logical answer then we can say, A Greater God. But it will not stop here since it will still seem illogical to stop here and this quest will keep going on and on unless we stop it at some point.
This may tempt us to conclude maybe God could not exist since we are not able to arrive at a logical conclusion. But, on thinking for a while we can understand that the same problem exists for many other things which we know exist. For an example, What is the smallest particle made of? If we want to find a logical answer we must say, one smaller than that. But then, What is that 'smaller one' made of ? Even smaller one. But again even this quest would never end unless we say, ''Well this must be the final" and be able to prove it by some other means. Notice, the answer still ends in an illogical way.
The same is true in the case of God. We cannot be on a infinite quest but must say at one point that ''Well it stops here, Nobody created Him"
But where do we stop? At a point where our logic fails. And it fails right at the first time Who made God (the first One we ask about?).
And why is a question leading us into a infinite loop? There are some interesting observations I have come across. Whenever our observation shifts from one system to another system (which operates with a different law/logic compared to the former) our method / laws of observation must change too or else we would be baffled as we are in this question.
A simple example, For the question "How does a car run?" one can start from the wheel and go through axles and then the shafts and finally to the steering wheel explaining things away as due to their movements. But after that comes the question "Why does the steering wheel turn?" we cannot apply the same laws (of mechanical systems) that we so far applied (for the wheels, axles, etc.) but must shift to the laws of biology (for the human part of the answer.)
Sumarising, the reason why this infinite loop occurs is because we are approaching a Being Who functions with different laws. And this itself could be a proof that God MUST exist and that He MUST be independent of the logic of the time and of logic itself which we have known so far.
God says in the Bible that before Him there was no God formed (Isaiah 43:10) and this answer perfectly fits into the observations we made. Also, this statement of God can be trusted that He alone is the only God by knowing His 'works' so far. Like the evidences left for the Great Flood (In the Sedimentary Rocks), Red Sea Crossing (@ Nuweiba), and more importantly the fullfilment of the prophecies about the Jews and the world.
Your notion that you can prove something, that is independent of logic; seems insane. Why? Because proofs are constructed with logic.
It would be like telling someone you could construct a wooden bench, without using any wood.
Just go through the examples I've given.
@Rabbi Mark
How does the car analogy work for self driving cars? Just add a few more layers? What about when an AI writes the code for self driving cars?
Ooooh that is familiar...just like your particles made of smaller particles analogy, or the who created god, (another god,, on and on) except we just injected a few new steps in the middle somewhere.
Problem here is, if we can inject a few steps in the middle as we need to, or discover additional steps, what does that make us humans? A god of sorts?
We humans have already achieved god like powers over our planet. We could destroy everything with a push of a button, we create all kinds of life (including humans) at will, even if it was not possible without human intervention.
Perhaps we should stop worshipping other humans god ideas, (most of which are 1000's of years old and utterly idiotic outdated god ideas,) and maybe just worship ourselves as gods?
The Bible does not deny that we have become like God in the abilities. Infact it was what God said when Adam and Eve ate the fruit of knowledge, "Man has become like us." And also, Jesus Himself said that we are little gods. But what is the reason do you think we have to worship ourselves? In regards to Jesus we know that He had made us and has loved us and its our duty to pay the same to Him.
Secondly, There is no reason for you to pull self driving cars into this. I used the car analogy to show that there is a boundary for any scientific laws and the entities beyond the boundary must be studied with the way (science) they operate. You cannot define a human with the laws of a mechanical system. The same way you cannot define/deny a higher dimensional Being with the laws of the lower dimension (of Earth).
@Rabbi Mark
I used the car analogy to show that there is a boundary for any scientific laws and the entities beyond the boundary must be studied with the way (science) they operate. You cannot define a human with the laws of a mechanical system. The same way you cannot define/deny a higher dimensional Being with the laws of the lower dimension"
You are assuming that there is more than this universe, some kind of higher dimension. Please provide proof on this assertion.
@ Rabbi Mark
I wanted to mention some lessons I have learned that may help a fellow Christian.
The words you use may not convey the meaning you intend. Try to be as exact an unambiguous as possible.
For example - "But where do we stop? At a point where our logic fails. And it fails right at the first time Who made God (the first One we ask about?)."
The word logic has a specific meaning that is generally understood by those on AR and in formal arguments. You may mean it as common sense or common reasoning, but other look at it as being rational, consistent, and valid. If you use the word in a way that can make someone understand that you think belief in God is illogical, that is not going to be a positive exchange.
Just as God is true and right, he is also logical. The "word" in John 1:1 could be phrased as In the beginning was divine logic.
Try and convince instead of cajoling and condemning.
Was the Great Flood regional or worldwide?
Was it the Red Sea or the Reed Sea?
Wow, I actually agree to a post from Jo.
Does that mean the apocalypse is nigh?
;)
I don't speak English as my first language so maybe some of the word usages may seem ambiguous to you (believing you speak English as your first language).
Secondly, I never tried to mean that God is illogical. I meant, that the laws of the higher dimensions are different from our world and they are difficult for our brains to understand. Example, our brain cannot understand how a Being could be Self-Existing yet the fact that there is no self creating particle in this world and the never ending question "who created God?" demands one to say at one point God is 'self-existing' at this point it appears as if we are actually violating the laws of logic but, this is what the facts demand.
Thirdly, what is the doubt you have about flood? I believe that it was worldwide. Since there are 'marine animal' fossils found on top of the mountains which are deep inlands. Eg. Fossils of Himalayas and the Whale fossil of the Andes and so many more. I these animals should be deposited to such great heights water has to cover those heights and logically water will not rise to such great heights in just one place. So it must be that the whole world was covered in a flood. Which again is recorded in the traditions of some nations.
Regarding your final question, It is the Red sea. What does Reed Sea mean? It makes me wonder if you really are a Christian or an Atheist under a Christian cover?
@Rabbi Mark
"Thirdly, what is the doubt you have about flood? I believe that it was worldwide. Since there are 'marine animal' fossils found on top of the mountains which are deep inlands. Eg. Fossils of Himalayas and the Whale fossil of the Andes and so many more..."
Plate tectonics means nothing to you, huh?
How can you know this, or are you claiming an insight into this esoteric dimension? Based on what one wonders, not objective evidence I bet?
My brain is struggling to understand how you can reel these endless unevidenced claims off without any sense of irony?
I see no facts, nor logic, just hearsay, the question on which the thread is predicated was I assumed not being literal, but rather a rational rebuttal to the unevidenced claim theists make for an eternal deity, usual just after they have insisted the universe cannot always have existed, and that infinite regress is impossible, again they seem to always miss the irony.
I have no doubts personally, it is demonstrably false, the story is farcical nonsense, even without the scientific input of geology, which kills it stone dead. Sadly you're happy to deny scientific facts, in favour of creationist propaganda, so a sensible discussion on this with you is impossible.
You mean he's an atheist who has inexplicably come to an atheist forum to troll theists, for some odd reason? Still no irony? Ah well....
Priceless, that's like Harry Potter validating his own existence in the eponymous books.
There isn't any, unless you want to deny the proven method of science here, in favour of creationist lies and propaganda. Which of course you do, but those of us who reason with an open and objective mind, find that kind of bias risible.
@Sheldon: If you want to start banging you head on the wall, you can stand right here next to me. There is a comfortable dent in the brick from the last guy that tried to talk some sense into rabbi mark.
Infinity does not go in a circle, to my thinking. It would not be infinity.
True. But I meant that out quest would be on a loop. We would face the same question and the same answer again and again.
By the way Do you find the answer (the former) satisfying?
Infinity is the place. Things do things in infinity, we are, and we can do things for ourselves. So little we know,
we don’t need a sometimes vengeful god(s). The idea of infinity is very scary to those who want to control others.
@I'm infinity bored with the presuppositional nonsense. I have spoken to god personally and he has informed me that the theists on the site are completely wrong and obviously so. There really is no need to continue the discussion as God has spoken.
Thy will be done.
Shall I ready the sacrificial banana?
You have encapsulated my own agony precisely.
@Cognostic
RE: "You see order, you are quite simply not moving down the ladder of atomic structures"
Are you aware the above verbose violates the Law of Entropy? It is impossible from order to be brought about by chaos unless an external energy is applied in a controlled manner.
So much for intellectual atheists. I expected a better show on this site but y'all are just a bunch of sheeples. SMDHLOL
I assume you mean the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Problem is, what you have stated is not the 2nd law. Perhaps you should call it Redemption's Law of Entropy or something.
Pages