Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[BreezeWood]

.

They can only argue against religion because there is no affirmative argument for atheism.

nor is there a theism with a physical connection to any supernatural beliefs.

the beginning of life becoming sustainable is born by only a single planet within its own atmosphere and is not a universal event. the argument for atheism resides in a factual understanding for planet Earth till theism proves otherwise. one does not have to be exclusive of the other, the dimension of life may reside within both.

 

[WillReadmore]

Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions? Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization? Are they spiritually dumb?

Are theists able to use rational thought, use deductive reasoning, and yadda yadda? Ban The teaching of Evolution to condemning Galileo's teachings as heretical? So are we going somewhere here? Religion burns people to death and crashes planes into buildings, so if there IS a more rational way of thought and behavior, it isn't religious. And religion isn't in any way in a position to point out who's who among the irrational given what they have done and are doing now.

Another scholar who just isn't quite smart enough to realize that I haven't made a single argument for religion anywhere in this thread. Likewise, supposed atheists haven't made a single argument in support of atheism. They can only argue against religion because there is no affirmative argument for atheism.

I share that view - that science doesn't offer an affirmative argument for atheism (or for theism).

On the other hand, I think religion makes the existence of god a root assumption - thus something that can't be proven true or false within religion.

All hypothesis start out as unproven. It must be examined and tested to be proven.

The rules of science don't allow for there to be any hypothesis that includes references to God.

 

[WillReadmore]

.

They can only argue against religion because there is no affirmative argument for atheism.

nor is there a theism with a physical connection to any supernatural beliefs.

the beginning of life becoming sustainable is born by only a single planet within its own atmosphere and is not a universal event. the argument for atheism resides in a factual understanding for planet Earth till theism proves otherwise. one does not have to be exclusive of the other, the dimension of life may reside within both.

I think what you're saying is that the question of the existence of life in other places in the universe is independent of the question of whether there is a god.

True?

 

[Czernobog]

Taking a quick break

That's weak. You have nothing. It is a good thing you didn't try to play it like you did.

So you can tell when someone has nothing? You learn that by looking in the mirror?

In this case it isn't hard. There is no natural evidence of a supernatural being other than what He created and they don't accept that so they paint themselves into a I am looking for natural evidence of a supernatural being corner. They literally have no evidence so their reason is based on nothing.

Yes. There is nothing that can be considered evidence on either side of the question of God's existence.

Scientific Method offers no way of proving either side of this question.

And, resorting to the laws and logic of religion to "prove" there is a god is ludicrous. Religion holds the existence of god as a primary assumption - something that does not require evidence or proof. It makes no sense at all to try to "prove" a primary assumption. All such arguments are circular.

We have what was created as evidence. We can study that. There's nothing circular about it. There are two options, there either is or there isn't. It is not circular to examine each option.

Only if you presume that the universe was, in fact created. In order to do that, you need to, first, provide objective evidence that it was created.

What you are presenting is a circular argument. "Proof that the universe was created is found in the existence of God, and proof of the existence of God is that the universe was created, "

This is the problem with theism. Ultimately, it always digresses to ignoring one logical fallacy, or another, in order to accept its conclusions.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[BreezeWood]

.

They can only argue against religion because there is no affirmative argument for atheism.

nor is there a theism with a physical connection to any supernatural beliefs.

the beginning of life becoming sustainable is born by only a single planet within its own atmosphere and is not a universal event. the argument for atheism resides in a factual understanding for planet Earth till theism proves otherwise. one does not have to be exclusive of the other, the dimension of life may reside within both.

I think what you're saying is that the question of the existence of life in other places in the universe is independent of the question of whether there is a god.

True?

.

I think what you're saying is that the question of the existence of life in other places in the universe is independent of the question of whether there is a god.

if there is life in other places there is not a shared atmosphere that binds them together at least with Earth. life is the reason for religion and that religion may simply be the factual understanding of the genome and the influences that created it however also there may be an Everlasting our life may lead us to. ruled by an Almighty.

 

[ding]

Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions? Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization? Are they spiritually dumb?

Are theists able to use rational thought, use deductive reasoning, and yadda yadda? Ban The teaching of Evolution to condemning Galileo's teachings as heretical? So are we going somewhere here? Religion burns people to death and crashes planes into buildings, so if there IS a more rational way of thought and behavior, it isn't religious. And religion isn't in any way in a position to point out who's who among the irrational given what they have done and are doing now.

Another scholar who just isn't quite smart enough to realize that I haven't made a single argument for religion anywhere in this thread. Likewise, supposed atheists haven't made a single argument in support of atheism. They can only argue against religion because there is no affirmative argument for atheism.

I share that view - that science doesn't offer an affirmative argument for atheism (or for theism).

On the other hand, I think religion makes the existence of god a root assumption - thus something that can't be proven true or false within religion.

All hypothesis start out as unproven. It must be examined and tested to be proven.

The rules of science don't allow for there to be any hypothesis that includes references to God.

Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?

 

[ding]

That's weak. You have nothing. It is a good thing you didn't try to play it like you did.

So you can tell when someone has nothing? You learn that by looking in the mirror?

In this case it isn't hard. There is no natural evidence of a supernatural being other than what He created and they don't accept that so they paint themselves into a I am looking for natural evidence of a supernatural being corner. They literally have no evidence so their reason is based on nothing.

Yes. There is nothing that can be considered evidence on either side of the question of God's existence.

Scientific Method offers no way of proving either side of this question.

And, resorting to the laws and logic of religion to "prove" there is a god is ludicrous. Religion holds the existence of god as a primary assumption - something that does not require evidence or proof. It makes no sense at all to try to "prove" a primary assumption. All such arguments are circular.

We have what was created as evidence. We can study that. There's nothing circular about it. There are two options, there either is or there isn't. It is not circular to examine each option.

Only if you presume that the universe was, in fact created. In order to do that, you need to, first, provide objective evidence that it was created.

What you are presenting is a circular argument. "Proof that the universe was created is found in the existence of God, and proof of the existence of God is that the universe was created, "

This is the problem with theism. Ultimately, it always digresses to ignoring one logical fallacy, or another, in order to accept its conclusions.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Sure, make the presumption and then test it.

 

[Czernobog]

Taking a quick break

That's weak. You have nothing. It is a good thing you didn't try to play it like you did.

So you can tell when someone has nothing? You learn that by looking in the mirror?

In this case it isn't hard. There is no natural evidence of a supernatural being other than what He created and they don't accept that so they paint themselves into a I am looking for natural evidence of a supernatural being corner. They literally have no evidence so their reason is based on nothing.

Yes. There is nothing that can be considered evidence on either side of the question of God's existence.

Scientific Method offers no way of proving either side of this question.

And, resorting to the laws and logic of religion to "prove" there is a god is ludicrous. Religion holds the existence of god as a primary assumption - something that does not require evidence or proof. It makes no sense at all to try to "prove" a primary assumption. All such arguments are circular.

We have what was created as evidence. We can study that. There's nothing circular about it. There are two options, there either is or there isn't. It is not circular to examine each option.

And what do we have that we know, with certainty, was created, and what is the evidence that it was created?

 

[Czernobog]

So you can tell when someone has nothing? You learn that by looking in the mirror?

In this case it isn't hard. There is no natural evidence of a supernatural being other than what He created and they don't accept that so they paint themselves into a I am looking for natural evidence of a supernatural being corner. They literally have no evidence so their reason is based on nothing.

Yes. There is nothing that can be considered evidence on either side of the question of God's existence.

Scientific Method offers no way of proving either side of this question.

And, resorting to the laws and logic of religion to "prove" there is a god is ludicrous. Religion holds the existence of god as a primary assumption - something that does not require evidence or proof. It makes no sense at all to try to "prove" a primary assumption. All such arguments are circular.

We have what was created as evidence. We can study that. There's nothing circular about it. There are two options, there either is or there isn't. It is not circular to examine each option.

Only if you presume that the universe was, in fact created. In order to do that, you need to, first, provide objective evidence that it was created.

What you are presenting is a circular argument. "Proof that the universe was created is found in the existence of God, and proof of the existence of God is that the universe was created, "

This is the problem with theism. Ultimately, it always digresses to ignoring one logical fallacy, or another, in order to accept its conclusions.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Sure, make the presumption and then test it.

Okay. Test away. How do you intend to test your premise that the Universe was created?

 

[ding]

In this case it isn't hard. There is no natural evidence of a supernatural being other than what He created and they don't accept that so they paint themselves into a I am looking for natural evidence of a supernatural being corner. They literally have no evidence so their reason is based on nothing.

Yes. There is nothing that can be considered evidence on either side of the question of God's existence.

Scientific Method offers no way of proving either side of this question.

And, resorting to the laws and logic of religion to "prove" there is a god is ludicrous. Religion holds the existence of god as a primary assumption - something that does not require evidence or proof. It makes no sense at all to try to "prove" a primary assumption. All such arguments are circular.

We have what was created as evidence. We can study that. There's nothing circular about it. There are two options, there either is or there isn't. It is not circular to examine each option.

Only if you presume that the universe was, in fact created. In order to do that, you need to, first, provide objective evidence that it was created.

What you are presenting is a circular argument. "Proof that the universe was created is found in the existence of God, and proof of the existence of God is that the universe was created, "

This is the problem with theism. Ultimately, it always digresses to ignoring one logical fallacy, or another, in order to accept its conclusions.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Sure, make the presumption and then test it.

Okay. Test away. How do you intend to test your premise that the Universe was created?

What do you think I've been doing, lol.

 

[WillReadmore]

.

They can only argue against religion because there is no affirmative argument for atheism.

nor is there a theism with a physical connection to any supernatural beliefs.

the beginning of life becoming sustainable is born by only a single planet within its own atmosphere and is not a universal event. the argument for atheism resides in a factual understanding for planet Earth till theism proves otherwise. one does not have to be exclusive of the other, the dimension of life may reside within both.

I think what you're saying is that the question of the existence of life in other places in the universe is independent of the question of whether there is a god.

True?

.

I think what you're saying is that the question of the existence of life in other places in the universe is independent of the question of whether there is a god.

if there is life in other places there is not a shared atmosphere that binds them together at least with Earth. life is the reason for religion and that religion may simply be the factual understanding of the genome and the influences that created it however also there may be an Everlasting our life may lead us to. ruled by an Almighty.

No. You're bobbing in and out of reality here.

"Shared atmosphere"???
"Religion as a factual understanding"???
"Everlasting life"??

Yes, you can say this stuff from a position firmly inside the religious sphere. And, the reason is that within that sphere you can say literally any kind of stuff you want without any constraint at all.

 

[Czernobog]

Are theists able to use rational thought, use deductive reasoning, and yadda yadda? Ban The teaching of Evolution to condemning Galileo's teachings as heretical? So are we going somewhere here? Religion burns people to death and crashes planes into buildings, so if there IS a more rational way of thought and behavior, it isn't religious. And religion isn't in any way in a position to point out who's who among the irrational given what they have done and are doing now.

Another scholar who just isn't quite smart enough to realize that I haven't made a single argument for religion anywhere in this thread. Likewise, supposed atheists haven't made a single argument in support of atheism. They can only argue against religion because there is no affirmative argument for atheism.

I share that view - that science doesn't offer an affirmative argument for atheism (or for theism).

On the other hand, I think religion makes the existence of god a root assumption - thus something that can't be proven true or false within religion.

All hypothesis start out as unproven. It must be examined and tested to be proven.

The rules of science don't allow for there to be any hypothesis that includes references to God.

Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?

Only if you were certain that it had been created, let alone created by WillReadmore. You see, you are saying that we can examine the universe to understand the nature of God, not to prove the existence of God. God's existence is being presumed. You keep trying this line of thought, and I keep pointing out that you are trying to put the cart before the horse.

 

[Czernobog]

Yes. There is nothing that can be considered evidence on either side of the question of God's existence.

Scientific Method offers no way of proving either side of this question.

And, resorting to the laws and logic of religion to "prove" there is a god is ludicrous. Religion holds the existence of god as a primary assumption - something that does not require evidence or proof. It makes no sense at all to try to "prove" a primary assumption. All such arguments are circular.

We have what was created as evidence. We can study that. There's nothing circular about it. There are two options, there either is or there isn't. It is not circular to examine each option.

Only if you presume that the universe was, in fact created. In order to do that, you need to, first, provide objective evidence that it was created.

What you are presenting is a circular argument. "Proof that the universe was created is found in the existence of God, and proof of the existence of God is that the universe was created, "

This is the problem with theism. Ultimately, it always digresses to ignoring one logical fallacy, or another, in order to accept its conclusions.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Sure, make the presumption and then test it.

Okay. Test away. How do you intend to test your premise that the Universe was created?

What do you think I've been doing, lol.

You have been trying to demonstrate the nature of God, based on "His Creation". Unfortunately, we have not even gotten to the existence of God, let alone established that he, in fact, created the universe.

 

[ding]

That's weak. You have nothing. It is a good thing you didn't try to play it like you did.

So you can tell when someone has nothing? You learn that by looking in the mirror?

In this case it isn't hard. There is no natural evidence of a supernatural being other than what He created and they don't accept that so they paint themselves into a I am looking for natural evidence of a supernatural being corner. They literally have no evidence so their reason is based on nothing.

Yes. There is nothing that can be considered evidence on either side of the question of God's existence.

Scientific Method offers no way of proving either side of this question.

And, resorting to the laws and logic of religion to "prove" there is a god is ludicrous. Religion holds the existence of god as a primary assumption - something that does not require evidence or proof. It makes no sense at all to try to "prove" a primary assumption. All such arguments are circular.

We have what was created as evidence. We can study that. There's nothing circular about it. There are two options, there either is or there isn't. It is not circular to examine each option.

And what do we have that we know, with certainty, was created, and what is the evidence that it was created?

We know that the early universe was extremely dense and hot and since then has expanded and cooled. We know that the initial expansion began more than 14 million years ago. We know that space and time came into existence. We know that we live in a universe that given enough time and the right conditions that beings that know and create will eventually arise. We know that the potential for beings that know and create existed the moment space and time were created. We know that it was controlled by natural processes. We know that beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created. We know about all of the evolutionary phases of matter. We know that before consciousness could evolve that matter had to complexify. We know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. We know that the universe has become a self referential system. We know that the matter and energy that make up who were are today was present in that initial expansion.

 

[ding]

Another scholar who just isn't quite smart enough to realize that I haven't made a single argument for religion anywhere in this thread. Likewise, supposed atheists haven't made a single argument in support of atheism. They can only argue against religion because there is no affirmative argument for atheism.

I share that view - that science doesn't offer an affirmative argument for atheism (or for theism).

On the other hand, I think religion makes the existence of god a root assumption - thus something that can't be proven true or false within religion.

All hypothesis start out as unproven. It must be examined and tested to be proven.

The rules of science don't allow for there to be any hypothesis that includes references to God.

Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?

Only if you were certain that it had been created, let alone created by WillReadmore. You see, you are saying that we can examine the universe to understand the nature of God, not to prove the existence of God. God's existence is being presumed. You keep trying this line of thought, and I keep pointing out that you are trying to put the cart before the horse.

No. I could study it regardless. See? I am studying it right now.

 

[ding]

We have what was created as evidence. We can study that. There's nothing circular about it. There are two options, there either is or there isn't. It is not circular to examine each option.

Only if you presume that the universe was, in fact created. In order to do that, you need to, first, provide objective evidence that it was created.

What you are presenting is a circular argument. "Proof that the universe was created is found in the existence of God, and proof of the existence of God is that the universe was created, "

This is the problem with theism. Ultimately, it always digresses to ignoring one logical fallacy, or another, in order to accept its conclusions.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Sure, make the presumption and then test it.

Okay. Test away. How do you intend to test your premise that the Universe was created?

What do you think I've been doing, lol.

You have been trying to demonstrate the nature of God, based on "His Creation". Unfortunately, we have not even gotten to the existence of God, let alone established that he, in fact, created the universe.

Are you under the illusion that you can prove the existence of a supernatural being in the natural world? The best we can do is study the natural world and examine it for indirect evidence of a Creator. You have no interest in that because it opposes your worldview. It threatens you.

 

[WillReadmore]

Yes. There is nothing that can be considered evidence on either side of the question of God's existence.

Scientific Method offers no way of proving either side of this question.

And, resorting to the laws and logic of religion to "prove" there is a god is ludicrous. Religion holds the existence of god as a primary assumption - something that does not require evidence or proof. It makes no sense at all to try to "prove" a primary assumption. All such arguments are circular.

We have what was created as evidence. We can study that. There's nothing circular about it. There are two options, there either is or there isn't. It is not circular to examine each option.

Only if you presume that the universe was, in fact created. In order to do that, you need to, first, provide objective evidence that it was created.

What you are presenting is a circular argument. "Proof that the universe was created is found in the existence of God, and proof of the existence of God is that the universe was created, "

This is the problem with theism. Ultimately, it always digresses to ignoring one logical fallacy, or another, in order to accept its conclusions.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Sure, make the presumption and then test it.

Okay. Test away. How do you intend to test your premise that the Universe was created?

What do you think I've been doing, lol.

Well, I've pointed out that you are tending to go in circles.

Also, it seems weird to me to depend so thoroughly on science and then flip to a totally non-scientific direction.

Are theists able to use rational thought, use deductive reasoning, and yadda yadda? Ban The teaching of Evolution to condemning Galileo's teachings as heretical? So are we going somewhere here? Religion burns people to death and crashes planes into buildings, so if there IS a more rational way of thought and behavior, it isn't religious. And religion isn't in any way in a position to point out who's who among the irrational given what they have done and are doing now.

Another scholar who just isn't quite smart enough to realize that I haven't made a single argument for religion anywhere in this thread. Likewise, supposed atheists haven't made a single argument in support of atheism. They can only argue against religion because there is no affirmative argument for atheism.

I share that view - that science doesn't offer an affirmative argument for atheism (or for theism).

On the other hand, I think religion makes the existence of god a root assumption - thus something that can't be proven true or false within religion.

All hypothesis start out as unproven. It must be examined and tested to be proven.

The rules of science don't allow for there to be any hypothesis that includes references to God.

Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?

Science does that all the time. No problem with that.

However, you won't be able to find out whether I'm God by doing that.

The catch is that you aren't applying the constraints that are fundamental to science. You are suggesting that we could identify something as requiring the supernatural.

We can use science to learn about our universe, but what we are learning is how natural processes work. When we run into stuff we don't understand, the answer from science is, "I don't know."

After a bunch more work, we often go back and say, "OK, now I know."

But, you are suggesting that at some point we should NOT say, "I don't know" - that we should instead say "God did it."

But, science has NO WAY to determine when to switch from "I don't know" to "God did it".

 

[Czernobog]

So you can tell when someone has nothing? You learn that by looking in the mirror?

In this case it isn't hard. There is no natural evidence of a supernatural being other than what He created and they don't accept that so they paint themselves into a I am looking for natural evidence of a supernatural being corner. They literally have no evidence so their reason is based on nothing.

Yes. There is nothing that can be considered evidence on either side of the question of God's existence.

Scientific Method offers no way of proving either side of this question.

And, resorting to the laws and logic of religion to "prove" there is a god is ludicrous. Religion holds the existence of god as a primary assumption - something that does not require evidence or proof. It makes no sense at all to try to "prove" a primary assumption. All such arguments are circular.

We have what was created as evidence. We can study that. There's nothing circular about it. There are two options, there either is or there isn't. It is not circular to examine each option.

And what do we have that we know, with certainty, was created, and what is the evidence that it was created?

We know that the early universe was extremely dense and hot and since then has expanded and cooled. We know that the initial expansion began more than 14 million years ago. We know that space and time came into existence. We know that we live in a universe that given enough time and the right conditions that beings that know and create will eventually arise. We know that the potential for beings that know and create existed the moment space and time were created. We know that it was controlled by natural processes. We know that beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created. We know about all of the evolutionary phases of matter. We know that before consciousness could evolve that matter had to complexify. We know that it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. We know that the universe has become a self referential system. We know that the matter and energy that make up who were are today was present in that initial expansion.

We don't know all of these things. For instance, "We know that beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature which came into existence when space and time were created." We know no such thing. Simply because Homo Sapiens did evolve, in no way indicates that thery were predestined to evolve. You are stating a conclusion for which there is no evidence. Several of your conclusions are being stated without evidence.

 

[WillReadmore]

I share that view - that science doesn't offer an affirmative argument for atheism (or for theism).

On the other hand, I think religion makes the existence of god a root assumption - thus something that can't be proven true or false within religion.

All hypothesis start out as unproven. It must be examined and tested to be proven.

The rules of science don't allow for there to be any hypothesis that includes references to God.

Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?

Only if you were certain that it had been created, let alone created by WillReadmore. You see, you are saying that we can examine the universe to understand the nature of God, not to prove the existence of God. God's existence is being presumed. You keep trying this line of thought, and I keep pointing out that you are trying to put the cart before the horse.

No. I could study it regardless. See? I am studying it right now.

I think the question is whether there is a possibility of coming to a valid conclusion on the existence of god by using the tools of science.

It's NOT whether you can study stuff. Anyone can do that.

The point I'd like to make is that science is never going to answer the question of whether god exists regardless of how much you study.

The problem is that the tool wasn't designed for that purpose.

 

[Czernobog]

I share that view - that science doesn't offer an affirmative argument for atheism (or for theism).

On the other hand, I think religion makes the existence of god a root assumption - thus something that can't be proven true or false within religion.

All hypothesis start out as unproven. It must be examined and tested to be proven.

The rules of science don't allow for there to be any hypothesis that includes references to God.

Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?

Only if you were certain that it had been created, let alone created by WillReadmore. You see, you are saying that we can examine the universe to understand the nature of God, not to prove the existence of God. God's existence is being presumed. You keep trying this line of thought, and I keep pointing out that you are trying to put the cart before the horse.

No. I could study it regardless. See? I am studying it right now.

You can, but any conclusions that you arrive at are faulty, and incapable of being supported by evidence.