Zone1 Atheism Has No Basis for the Idea of Good or Evil, Just or Unjust

[buttercup]

Reads more like logic for thee but not for me...

Which part is illogical, in your view? The conclusion, or the statement that the first cause must be eternal? Because the latter is bullet-proof.

Again, by definition a first cause is uncaused. If it was caused, then it wouldn't be the first cause.

If the conclusion is what is illogical to you... then please esplain yourself.

The alternative is an infinite regress of causes, which is not only absurd and goes against Occam's razor, but according to many philosophers, is logically impossible.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Again, by definition a first cause is uncaused. If it was caused, then it wouldn't be the first cause.

If the conclusion is what is illogical to you... then please esplain yourself.

This is why I like the Big Bounce versus the Big Bang.

You see?

 

[Donald H]

No. It is all true. Mathematical gimmicks to eliminate the mathematical singularity - which is what they are talking about - doesn't negate the universe did begin.

Your opinion is just one opinion amongst a scattergun approach by Christians. It's subject to a 10 to 20 year delay on catching up with science.

 

[Donald H]

Of course we don't know if our universe as actually created or if it already existed, just in a different state. Guesses and assumptions are not logical.

Science provides the logic, if you care to read it and understand.

If you reject science then you will be doing so with some understanding, as opposed to kneejerk christianity.

 

[TNHarley]

Should I be using your life as a yardstick to determine how much better my life would be without religion or God?

 

[buttercup]

This is why I like the Big Bounce versus the Big Bang.

You see?

I know. I don't want to sound cynical, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone came up with "the Big Bounce" to get around the fact that the idea of the universe having a beginning is problematic for the atheistic scientific community.

Unfortunately for Scientism (as opposed to science) there are all sorts of logical problems for an actual infinite.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I know. I don't want to sound cynical, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone came up with "the Big Bounce" to get around the fact that the idea of the universe having a beginning is problematic for the atheistic scientific community.

Unfortunately for Scientism (as opposed to science) there are all sorts of logical problems for an actual infinite.

It's not at all a new theory.

And it's logica in the fundamental sense rather than the sacred truths sense.

This is the conundrum for those who historically profess and contend that they already have all of the answers and that no more questions need to be asked.

So I can understand sour grapes reaction.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Unfortunately for Scientism (as opposed to science) there are all sorts of logical problems for an actual infinite.

I dunno about ''scientism.'' Once someone attaches an ism to something I don't take dialogue very seriously and often see no value in continuing. Those are not, in my view, serious people. They speak from the heart. And often contempt for opposing logic.

With regard to actual science, it's just asking more questions. That's all it really is. It's acknowledging that we do not have all of the answers and that we should always ask more questions. That's humility...

 

[buttercup]

It's not at all a new theory.

And it's logical.

This is the conundrum for those who historically profess and contend that they already have all of the answers and that no more questions need to be asked.

So I can understand sour grapes reaction.

An infinite regress of causes is illogical. I'm not a philosopher or a mathematician, so I'm not the best person to explain this, but plenty of philosophers have already gone into this topic in depth, on the many reasons why it is illogical and leads to absurdities.

And you're looking at this in a very one-sided way. You're making it sound like believers have a problem, but no, we don't. What I do see is atheists going to great lengths to exclude even the possibility of a Creator....and I do get that. I get that people don't want to be accountable to anyone higher than themselves. Because that means changing one's life... and I get the resistance to that. I really do.

 

[dblack]

I get that people don't want to be accountable to anyone higher than themselves. Because that means changing one's life... and I get the resistance to that. I really do.

You don't get anything. You're just ascribing immature, selfish motives to people who don't believe in your God. So, you know, piss off.

 

[Natural Citizen]

...plenty of philosophers have already gone into this topic in depth, on the many reasons why it is illogical and leads to absurdities.

Yes, well, Flick says he saw some grizzly bears down at Pulaski's candy store.

And you're looking at this in a very one-sided way.

Bo I'm not.

You're making it sound like believers have a problem, but no, we don't.

No I'm not.


You said that by definition a first cause is uncaused.

I simply expanded the terms of controversy beyond the boundaries you wer trying to set.

What I do see is atheists going to great lengths to exclude even the possibility of a Creator....and I do get that. I get that people don't want to be accountable to anyone higher than themselves. Because that means changing one's life... and I get the resistance to that. I really do.

I'm not really interested in debating sacred truths. I find no value in it. It's akin to the blue helmets vs the red helmets all over again, except in a different sub-forum.

I'll leave that to you folks.

 

[buttercup]

I dunno about ''scientism.'' Once someone attaches an ism to something I don't take dialogue very seriously and often see no value in continuing. Those are not, in my view, serious people. They speak from the heart. And often contempt for opposing logic.

With regard to actual science, it's just asking more questions. That's all it really is. It's acknowledging that we do not have all of the answers and that we should always ask more questions. That's humility...

This is an interesting topic that I think could be a thread of its own...but for now I just want to say I agree with you to an extent. Of course it's good to ask more questions. And of course there's always more to learn, there's so much we don't know. We should never stop learning.

That said… there comes a point when this "we should always ask more questions" rule seems to be something to hide behind. An excuse to not believe in something.

There comes a point when it becomes illogical and self-defeating. Because the statement "truth is unknowable" in and of itself is a truth statement, so it is self-contradicting. Do you see what I'm saying?

 

[Natural Citizen]

This is an interesting topic that I think could be a thread of its own...

It's just expansion of existing dialogue pertaining to this topic. A broadening of the terms of controversy, unwelcomed as it might be.

But I can understand why you'd want to make it go away and keep dialogue contained to your own terms. I get it. It's human nature.

Ah well.

You all may proceed without me.

I don't often venture into this section anyway. Besides, I have a klan meetin to get to...

 

[buttercup]

It's just expansion of dialogue pertaining to this topic.

But I can understand why you'd want to make it go away.

Ah well.

You all may proceed without me.

I don't often venture into this section.

What! That is blatantly false! I just finished saying it's an interesting topic that could be a whole thread of its own. That means I would love to talk about it, not the other way around.

In fact, I just did, a little. And you ignored what I said.

And now you seem to want to take your ball and go home. lol

 

[buttercup]

. Besides, I have a klan meetin to get to...

ETA: I wasn't thinking of you at all when I said that on that other thread. I did have a few other people in mind, but I was mostly kidding anyway.

 

[forkup]

This is an interesting topic that I think could be a thread of its own...but for now I just want to say I agree with you to an extent. Of course it's good to ask more questions. And of course there's always more to learn, there's so much we don't know. We should never stop learning.

That said… there comes a point when this "we should always ask more questions" rule seems to be something to hide behind. An excuse to not believe in something.

There comes a point when it becomes illogical and self-defeating. Because the statement "truth is unknowable" in and of itself is a truth statement, so it is self-contradicting. Do you see what I'm saying?

There's not a scientist in the world that would claim "truth is unknowable", in fact, figuring out the truth is the whole purpose of science. Theists are the ones that insert God whenever they figure the truth hasn't been uncovered. That's what the God of the gap's argument is all about.

 

[Natural Citizen]

And now you seem to want to take your ball and go home. lol

Well how many times do you want me to dunk on you in front of the home crowd in one day?

It's so bad that you're trying to turn it into an away game with that, naw, naw, naw, make another thread stuff.

 

[Natural Citizen]

But, no, seriously, I don't even like this section. it's always bad juju. If it wasn't at the top of the board, I probably wouldn't even have clicked on it.

I'm gonna go troll Toro or something...

 

[buttercup]

Well how many times do you want me to dunk on you in front of the home crowd in one day?

It's so bad that you're trying to turn it into an away game with that, naw, naw, naw, make another thread stuff.

You totally misunderstood me. When I say "This could be a topic for a thread of its own" that usually means that it's a topic I find interesting that I have thought about creating a thread on. And that I might at some point create a thread on. It did NOT mean that I didn't want to talk about it.

Besides, I did bring up a couple points about always asking more questions and you didn't respond to them, you cut off my post and only replied to the beginning part.

 

[forkup]

Which part is illogical, in your view? The conclusion, or the statement that the first cause must be eternal? Because the latter is bullet-proof.

Again, by definition a first cause is uncaused. If it was caused, then it wouldn't be the first cause.

If the conclusion is what is illogical to you... then please esplain yourself.

The alternative is an infinite regress of causes, which is not only absurd and goes against Occam's razor, but according to many philosophers, is logically impossible.

The conclusion, or the statement that the first cause must be eternal? Because the latter is bullet-proof.

How do you figure the "first cause must be eternal is bulletproof?" Both presuppose the concept of time. Time is a mathematical construct and is relative. What does "first" mean without the concept of time? What does "eternal" mean without a concept of time? These are questions science tries to answer. Theists simply assert God and stop inquiring.