My complaints with Theism being irrational precept

Jolmer
Posts: 25
Joined: 2006-07-25
User is offlineOffline
My complaints with Theism being irrational precept

Theism is NOT Irrational. This is coming from a strong Agnostic. I wont explain why here mainly because its essays for biased Atheists here.

I am Republican. But I am not what you think that is.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Pyrokidd, I'm going to

heyeverybody, I'm going to assume that you are ignoring what I've written and being wilfully dishonest in your replies. You fail to address any of the points I've made and instead chose to toss off the burden of proof again and equivocate the universe with a human made machine and then claim that a supernatural god that contains self contradictory attributes is logical. The goal of this site could be to 'cure' theism, though I believe the image of that which you conjure is different than the reality.

I happen to be antitheist as I believe that religion and god belief are harmful to the world. I am not an antitheist because I want to 'cure' people of religion. I don't care what people believe as long as they aren't affecting me and the world with it. The antitheist arises in circumstances where the world is fraught by religiosity and does not necessarily care to 'cure' theists.

You do not understand the nature of inductive reasoning. Also, the Christian god and necessarily other theist god claims can be shown not to exist logically. You may examine the logic that makes such statements truthful or you may continue to ignore what I've written.

I don't know that the founders of the site are antitheist, though if they are I am unsurprised and it doesn't change the fact that whether anyone is antitheist or not it has nothing to do with this debate. Thank you for being honest in one statement. It is good to know that you see how 'antitheist' has nothing to do with this.

That you didn't read my post is well illustrated by the fact that you quote two distinct and different (even mutually exclusive) definitions of the term agnostic and then use those two definitions to infer that agnosticism is a position itself concerning god belief. That is dishonest and incorrect. Had you read my post you would have read this:

In fact, as I've pointed out already, 1b corroborates and is referring specifically to 'strong' Atheists (termed here 'true' Atheism, which would be the denial of the existence of a god or gods in this case) as differentiated from 'weak' or agnostic Atheists who would claim that it is not possible to assign a truth value to a god claim.

and this:

An Atheist is a person who denies or disbelieves in a god or gods. Denies or disbelieves. We've covered this. The difference is between 'strong' (gnostic) or 'weak' (agnostic) Atheism. It is not difficult to understand. Please, the definition I gave is supported by the American Heritage Dictionary, the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Online Etymology, WordNet and other English language lexicon resources.

If you ignore the majority of my posts only to commit a number of fallacies and to write inane drivel again which has been addressed already I will cease to reply to you. Other posters have addressed the exact issues I've addressed and, as far as your concerned, no better than I have. Stop being intellectually dishonest and begin to read and to respond to entire posts without committing fallacies and without restating what has been dealt with in previous posts.

Also, it is pertinent to note here that a synonym to definition 1 as given by the source I cited is Atheism. I fail to see how you can outright and flatly ignore that. Perhaps that will be incentive for you to stop your intellectual dishonesty and to actually read what others have posted.

edited: I forgot to whom I was responding. 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
heyeverybody

heyeverybody wrote:

Thomathy, I'll address a few of your comments. . .

Thomathy wrote:
You're supposing here that the observed constants of the universe are necessarily the result of an 'orderly power' governing it. There is no evidence of this. Until you can present evidence the working model must simply allow for the constant to exist as they do.

Until you can present a working model of an orderly machine with no orderly instructions, it must be assumed that order requires instructions. I'm waiting. . .

So you define the universe as ordered and then say that everything that is ordered requires orderly instructions.  What have you left yourself, against which to contrast order, in order to arrive at the conclusion that the universe is ordered and therefor requires instructions? If nothing is disordered, then there is no criteria by which to identify order.

Is god ordered? If you think so, then how is it that god is ordered without instructions? If god does not require instructions then you yourself have provided an example of order without instructions which makes your proposition that there is a need for a god to instruct order, for there to be order, self refuting.

 


“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


heyeverybody
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-10-23
User is offlineOffline
shikko wrote: False

shikko wrote:
False analogy.
Quote:

It wasn't an analogy.  I was begging the question of whether it were a coincidence that man's only explanation of order in the universe is tied to a being capable of maintaining such order.  

Nice dodge, btw. 


heyeverybody
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-10-23
User is offlineOffline
shikko wrote: Please

shikko wrote:
Please usefully define "orderly machine" and "instructions" in the above sentence and we can start working on it.

Name one mechanism that does not adhere to natural law other than God. 

Quote:
Since I'm not a physics guy, I don't know if observation 1 is accurate or not. Can you tell me how observations 2 and 3 are not countered by ice formation? It is an increase in order and all you need are the proper amount of heat and water.

Ice formation is a result of natural law acting on elements.  Elements are designed to adhere to natural law.  My thesis is that natural law cannot exist without a natural law giver.  Science cannot refute this claim.  The scientist only says, "We cannot know the origins of natural laws."  It's really a dodge from having to say, "It could have been God."  If the best explanation that exists is God, then theism is not irrational. 

Quote:
Non sequitir. Christian theology also states that the moon gives off its own light, and an omnimax god exists. Neither of those things are true (the second isn't even possible).

Could you point me to the scriptures where it says the moon gives off its own light?  And please find me the scriptures pertaining to God's omni-whatever. . . God does have limits.  For instance, Hebrews says "God cannot tell a lie."  And I don't believe God is present in Hell either. 

Quote:
This is flat-out wrong. Believers in the supernatural (whatever that would mean) are making a positive truth claim; they are stating a set of facts about how the universe works. In order for that belief to be rational, all the assumptions and conclusions made and reached must hold together logically.

The only Biblical reference about how the universe works is that God holds all things together by his Word.  Direct me to others so I can investigate them.  And since you cannot give an example of order without instructions, then atheism is rational too.   

Quote:
For example: I believe that chimps hoot Puccini operas when no one is watching (this includes audiovisual recording equipment, which they can sense). Are you saying that it is not only rational for me to believe this, but irrational for anyone to tell me I'm being irrational? We all know chimps hoot, and that Puccini exists, so how about it? Yes or no?

I have given you my evidence for God: order.  Where is your evidence that chimps hoot Puccini? 


heyeverybody
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-10-23
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy, This wont be the

Thomathy,

This wont be the first time you cease to reply to me.  You said you were done with me a few weeks ago. . . Do me one favor.  Look up "agnosticism" in Webster's online dictionary.  Forget what you know, and read it.  I think you will find that agnosticism is a response to theism and atheism.  It is a middle ground that says, "I don't believe you can know."  And for crying out loud, you said you aren't an antitheist, but now you are. . . make up your mind! 

 


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
heyeverybody

heyeverybody wrote:

 

Name one mechanism that does not adhere to natural law other than God.

Natural laws are our descriptions of the way things exist in relation to one another. To ask for an example of something that does not adhere to natural law is to ask for an example of something that does not exist. You have already provided this example by stating that your god does not adhere to natural law.

Quote:

Ice formation is a result of natural law acting on elements. Elements are designed to adhere to natural law. My thesis is that natural law cannot exist without a natural law giver. Science cannot refute this claim. The scientist only says, "We cannot know the origins of natural laws." It's really a dodge from having to say, "It could have been God." If the best explanation that exists is God, then theism is not irrational.

We know the origins of natural laws. We formulated them. The phenomenon they describe most likely originated in the big bang. That is as far as natural laws can apply as such laws break down as we approach a singularity. A god is in no way an explanation as it doesn't explain anything. It simply attempts to avoid explaining things. If you can explain how a god creates natural laws then you might have something. I'll await that explanation. 


Quote:

I have given you my evidence for God: order. Where is your evidence that chimps hoot Puccini?

Chimps don't hoot Puccini.  

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
heyeverybody

heyeverybody wrote:

Thomathy,

This wont be the first time you cease to reply to me. You said you were done with me a few weeks ago. . .

You're right I did. Different topic, different thread. Also, I won't cease responding to you if you give up being so intellectually dishonest and admit that you are wrong and carry on with the thread in an honest manner.

Quote:

Do me one favor. Look up "agnosticism" in Webster's online dictionary. Forget what you know, and read it. I think you will find that agnosticism is a response to theism and atheism. It is a middle ground that says, "I don't believe you can know."

I have read it. It does not support what you assert. You are lying. This is what Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines agnostic as:

1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics> You can stop being dishonest whenever you like. That is not an 'in between' position. If a person is not committed to the existence or nonexistence that person must still live as though god exists or as though god does not. If a person lives as though god does not exist that person is Atheist. The term is 'weak' or agnostic Atheist. A person can either live with a belief in god or a non-belief in god. There is no in between. Simply because someone does not wish to choose whether god certainly does or does not exist does not mean that the person is not either theist or Atheist. I cannot explain this in another way at all. You must cease your intellectual dishonesty.
Quote:
And for crying out loud, you said you aren't an antitheist, but now you are. . . make up your mind!

 

I don't believe I ever stated that I was not antitheist. No, in fact I never stated here that I was not antitheist. Where did you read that? If you read it from another thread, good for you, you'd be right. If you didn't, you're inferring that based on my attack of your unsupported assumption earlier. Merely because I did not announce my own antitheism does not mean that I could be assumed not to be. I admit, however, that it may have had that effect. My problem was you confused antitheism with a position of 'curing' theists.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


ABx
Posts: 195
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
heyeverybody wrote: Until

heyeverybody wrote:
Until you can present a working model of an orderly machine with no orderly instructions, it must be assumed that order requires instructions. I'm waiting. . .
Why MUST anything be assumed? Why not simply say "I don't know" until such a time that enough evidence is found to start working toward hard answers?

Also, why must we compare the universe to a man-made machine? 


ABx
Posts: 195
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
heyeverybody wrote:

heyeverybody wrote:

I am not attempting to shift the burden of proof. I am just saying that until you can simply explain to me why God doesn't exist, you cannot call theism irrational.

Erm, that IS what shifting the burden of proof is.

Quote:
This is not to say that all theism is rational, just that the concept of God is not irrational. There are plenty of reasons to believe in God.
Reasons aren't always rational, even if they're made by otherwise rational people.

Quote:
For the concept of theism to be irrational, you would have to simply explain to me (in a few short paragraphs) how the universe holds the concepts of order without an orderly power to govern it.
The theists are making the claim of god, so it's their (your) job to provide proof. To claim otherwise is shifting the burden of proof.

Quote:
Secondly, to call yourself an agnostic-atheist, or any other combination of the words, is a whoring of language. An agnostic might as well call himself an atheist-theist. And for you to call yourself an agnostic-atheist who is also an antitheist is an even bigger joke. (did you guys know your spell check doesn't catch "antitheist?&quotEye-wink Atheist="I claim to KNOW God doesn't exist," Theist="I claim to not KNOW God does exist," Agnostic="I claim that God's existence is unknowable." If you are going to coin new words, at least make sure they are definable.
I always find it funny when someone who is not an atheist feels they have greater authority to define what atheism is.

The reasons for, and specifics of, the distinction have been made pretty clear in this thread.

Quote:
BTW, If you claim to be an agnostic-whatever, you immediately disqualify yourself to say that theism is an irrational precept.
So if you see no reason to believe in a god (perhaps even after exhausting all available avenues of rational thought), but you're open to being proven wrong, you have no right to say that there's no rational reason to believe in god. How so?


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
heyeverybody wrote:

heyeverybody wrote:

Theism is rational because we cannot fully explain the cosmos. As long as one cannot disprove something beyond a shadow of a doubt by inductive reasoning, then to subscribe to such a theory is not irrational.

Have any of you acquired 100% of the knowledge in the universe? PM me once you have.

Essentially you are saying it is on to have faith in things if we don't know everything? What about faith in a god who promotes murder? What about faith in anything that promotes the killing of people. The problem is faith. A man can have faith that god is that voice in his head telling him to kill people. Since you don't have 100% knowledge of what goes on in his head, then I guess that makes it rational for him to kill. With that type of rationality what can be irrational?

 

[Edit: corrected misspellings] 

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
heyeverybody wrote: shikko

heyeverybody wrote:

shikko wrote:
False analogy.

It wasn't an analogy.

Okay, now I'm a bit confused. Peppermint wrote:

peppermint wrote:

Theism does not have a logical foundation based on proof and evidence, so therefore it is irrational.

To which you responded:

heyeverybody wrote:

Order. The amount of order in the universe is unknowable. This is also an attribute of God. Interesting. Discussion?

So, "Thing A (amount of universe's order) has quality B (unknowable). Thing C (god) also has quality B (unknowable)." You say this to make the case that A and C are substantially connected (see below). That is basically the textbook example of an analogy. It also has absolutely nothing to do with peppermint's point about theism having no logical foundation, so why bother saying it?

heyeverybody wrote:

I was begging the question of whether it were a coincidence that man's only explanation of order in the universe is tied to a being capable of maintaining such order.

I fail to see how "man's only explanation of order in the universe" is "tied to a being capable of maintaining such order" given that there is nothing about entities in any of, say, the laws of thermodynamics, the weak nuclear force or electromagnetism to name a few. Can you please tell me how physics depends on this being?

heyeverybody wrote:

Nice dodge, btw.

Nice projection, btw. You asked a question. I answered it. I asked a question. You don't answer it. I'm dodging. Right.

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
heyeverybody wrote: shikko

heyeverybody wrote:

shikko wrote:
Please usefully define "orderly machine" and "instructions" in the above sentence and we can start working on it.

Name one mechanism that does not adhere to natural law other than God.

Woah, there. I'm not the one saying God isn't subject to physical laws, YOU are. Also, how is this a response to my question?

What do you mean by "orderly machine" and "instructions"?

Quote:

Quote:
Since I'm not a physics guy, I don't know if observation 1 is accurate or not. Can you tell me how observations 2 and 3 are not countered by ice formation? It is an increase in order and all you need are the proper amount of heat and water.

Ice formation is a result of natural law acting on elements.

Yes, although to nitpick, water isn't an element unless you're Aristotle.

Quote:

Elements are designed to adhere to natural law.

No. Elements aren't "designed" to adhere to anything. They have properties that make them act in certain ways in certain conditions.

Quote:

My thesis is that natural law cannot exist without a natural law giver.

Great! Prove it and collect your Templeton and Nobel Prizes.

Quote:

Science cannot refute this claim. The scientist only says, "We cannot know the origins of natural laws." It's really a dodge from having to say, "It could have been God." If the best explanation that exists is God, then theism is not irrational.

Incorrect. Science cannot refute the claim because the claim is unverifiable, unfalsifiable and unscientific. To quote Dijkstra, "that's not even wrong." I don't think anyone says "cannot"; they say "do not". It's quite possible that a scientist said the former, but I don't think it's been proven that discovering the source of these things is impossible.

You actually have this backwards. "It could have been God" is the dodge from doing actual work that gives you actual results about the universe. God existing is NOT the default position.

Quote:

Quote:
Non sequitir. Christian theology also states that the moon gives off its own light, and an omnimax god exists. Neither of those things are true (the second isn't even possible).

Could you point me to the scriptures where it says the moon gives off its own light?

All below NIV:

Isaiah 13:10

Ezekiel 32:7

Matthew 24:29

Mark 13:24

Quote:

And please find me the scriptures pertaining to God's omni-whatever. . . God does have limits. For instance, Hebrews says "God cannot tell a lie." And I don't believe God is present in Hell either.

Thank you for driving another nail into the coffin of biblical inerrancy. Hebrews directly contradicts these passages about God's omnipotence (again, all NIV):

Job 42:2

Matthew 19:26

Detailing God's omniscience:

John 16:30

John 21:17

Detailing God's omnibenevolence:

Psalms 18:30

Quote:

Quote:
This is flat-out wrong. Believers in the supernatural (whatever that would mean) are making a positive truth claim; they are stating a set of facts about how the universe works. In order for that belief to be rational, all the assumptions and conclusions made and reached must hold together logically.

The only Biblical reference about how the universe works is that God holds all things together by his Word. Direct me to others so I can investigate them.

By the very nature of believing in the god of the bible, you are making a ton of knowledge claims about the world (and zoology, mathematics, astrophysics, etc.). Are bats mammals? What is the value of pi? Where is hell? These are all things the bible makes claims about, and these claims are testable. Are they right?

The existence of a soul, heaven and hell are all statements about how the universe works. Then there's the Genesis account of the creation of the Universe, the solar system, the earth, plants and animals. Any time the bible says "this is how things happen", that is a claim about how the universe works.

Quote:

And since you cannot give an example of order without instructions, then atheism is rational too.

Wrong. You have postulated that "order" (which you have yet to define well) is impossible without "instructions" (which you also have not yet defined well). It is up to you to prove that this is the case, not me. Nice try shifting the burden of proof, though. You seem to do that quite a bit in this thread.

Quote:

Quote:
For example: I believe that chimps hoot Puccini operas when no one is watching (this includes audiovisual recording equipment, which they can sense). Are you saying that it is not only rational for me to believe this, but irrational for anyone to tell me I'm being irrational? We all know chimps hoot, and that Puccini exists, so how about it? Yes or no?

I have given you my evidence for God: order. Where is your evidence that chimps hoot Puccini?

The natural universe is not evidence of anything other than the existence of itself. You are making a "god of the gaps" argument for everything you don't have an answer to, which is just silly. "I don't know where gravitation came from, or how we got from amino acids to the first forms of life, so God must have done it" is stultifying; it stops us from getting at usable answers about how things work, or why things are the way they are.

You also didn't answer the question I asked, by the way. I asked if I am rational to hold my belief in the Puccini-hooting chimps as well as believing yourself irrational for doubting my rationality about that belief; I didn't ask for evidence. So how about it? Am I rational, and all detractors irrational? Please try to answer directly.

You'll get evidence about the chimps when I get evidence that the natural laws are direct evidence of a god.

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.