Jump to content
Islamic Forum
llogical

About Atheism..

Recommended Posts

The concept of devine or God has always been around from the beginning of history...exploring this concept based on logical premise, where do Athiests Stand? To be an Athiest one must believe that God doesn't exist. This means that from an Athiest standpoint than one must reject the possibility of God's existance. How do athiests define the existance of the world and creation in general?? come on now don't be shy :D

not to single any 1 out but bro 3rdshocker.. I know you atleast must have something 2 say.

peace :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Peace Illogical,

 

The concept of devine or God has always been around from the beginning of history...exploring this concept based on logical premise, where do Athiests Stand? To be an Athiest one must believe that God doesn't exist. This means that from an Athiest standpoint than one must reject the possibility of God's existance. How do athiests define the existance of the world and creation in general?? come on now don't be shy

 

I'm not sure I understand your question, by "define the existance of the world" do you mean an explanation of how the universe came to be as it is and/or came into being in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace Illogical,

 

 

 

I'm not sure I understand your question, by "define the existance of the world" do you mean an explanation of how the universe came to be as it is and/or came into being in the first place?

I mean the primary cause of all existance....how the universe came into existance etc.

It can't be randomness as their is a specific design to the the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

Even if it appears to some as random there is a 'first-cause' that set everything into motion :D

 

Peace,

AS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D

 

Even if it appears to some as random there is a 'first-cause' that set everything into motion :D

 

Peace,

AS

sup bro.

 

what you say is true..from a theological perspective though...I want to know how the Athiests bypass the primary cause argument. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheists are the most IRONIC people I know. They fallow the rules of governance and society (roots of religion), yet they dont believe that there are any implications for their actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...I want to know how the Athiests bypass the primary cause argument. :D

 

So do I :D and I didn't forget about you, don't worry :D

 

Peace,

AS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace,

 

what you say is true..from a theological perspective though...I want to know how the Athiests bypass the primary cause argument.

 

Personally I go down the road of the, 'God of the Gaps' line of thought.

 

Incans used to worship the sun as God because they did not understand it. Until the early 20th Century religious theists continued to use the sun as some sort of proof that God existed, because no explanation for the Suns continued 'burning' was forthcoming. They manipulated scientific works such as Lord Kelvin's calculations that were the sun composed solely of coal, then it could only burn for 3,000 years. Ergo, the sun continuing to burn for many millions and billions of years was impossible to explain through contemporary science - therefore the devout concluded, the sun was evidence of God.

 

Now we know a little more about nuclear fusion we can explain the suns enduring presence and the religious among us no longer use the Sun as 'proof' of God in this way. At varying times throughout history all sorts of now explainable pheonomeona have been attributed directly to God. Lightning, earthquakes, floods, drought, disease - you name it. Now we know about static electricity, plate techtonics, pressure in the atmosphere, airborne contagions and germs, these arguments are no longer used.

 

It is my belief that to use the 'first cause' argument as being directly attributable to God, is to ignore humanities theological errors since the Inca's and probably before. You are correct that I cannot explain what the first cause was, or even if there was a first cause, or even if the laws of causality apply outwith our universe, or indeed if there is anything outwith our universe.

 

I'd like to say for clarity though that I don't use the God of the Gaps argument to try and disprove the existance of God, merely to criticize currently unexplainable pheonomeona being attributed to Him.

 

Have I bypassed sufficiently? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace,

 

 

 

Personally I go down the road of the, 'God of the Gaps' line of thought.

(err??? Im confused... :D ) Don't you mean the other way around..that you don't go down that line of thought.

definition of "god of the gaps argument:God of the Gaps is the method of claiming God (or gods) exists by pointing to gaps in our present knowledge of how things work

Incans used to worship the sun as God because they did not understand it. Until the early 20th Century religious theists continued to use the sun as some sort of proof that God existed, because no explanation for the Suns continued 'burning' was forthcoming. They manipulated scientific works such as Lord Kelvin's calculations that were the sun composed solely of coal, then it could only burn for 3,000 years. Ergo, the sun continuing to burn for many millions and billions of years was impossible to explain through contemporary science - therefore the devout concluded, the sun was evidence of God.

Now we know a little more about nuclear fusion we can explain the suns enduring presence and the religious among us no longer use the Sun as 'proof' of God in this way. At varying times throughout history all sorts of now explainable pheonomeona have been attributed directly to God. Lightning, earthquakes, floods, drought, disease - you name it. Now we know about static electricity, plate techtonics, pressure in the atmosphere, airborne contagions and germs, these arguments are no longer used.

 

I agree... the less we know how stuff works the more we credit "God" ( but god of gaps is slightly off topic here)

 

It is my belief that to use the 'first cause' argument as being directly attributable to God, is to ignore humanities theological errors since the Inca's and probably before. You are correct that I cannot explain what the first cause was, or even if there was a first cause, or even if the laws of causality apply outwith our universe, or indeed if there is anything outwith our universe.

 

I'd like to say for clarity though that I don't use the God of the Gaps argument to try and disprove the existance of God, merely to criticize currently unexplainable pheonomeona being attributed to Him.

 

Have I bypassed sufficiently? :D

 

Bypass?Yes indeed you have bypassed it thoroughly...but you also bypassed my understanding. :D

Maybe you thought I was smarter than I am, but it's all good, I forgive you :D

Just so Your train of thoughts don't miss the station of my comprehension maybe u can explain in laments terms... (..No u can't call me a lamer :D )

 

Here is why I didn't quite understand....The god of Gaps argument has nothing to do with the primary cause argument or existance of God. Perhaps a valid inference we can draw understanding the argumnet is that God is not the direct cause of physical events that occur and that we don't understand how. This doesn't mean that he doesn't exist at all. Why I stress the primary cause argument?

Because we can argue that God doesn't make rain.....evapration and condensation does... but question remains who created the process. We understand how something works which is different than... why it works that way? We understand the law of physics...we can calculate how long it will take for an object of certain density and mass to hit th ground (big up to Newton) but who cretaed these laws?

Knowing that the primary cause thing is tricky, I can see why no one can expalain it, let's abandon the dang thing.

What I was looking for was proof that God doesn't exist because if it can't be proven than one can't logically say that he doesn't exist. One can logically say than "I don't know if he exists" .....but how does one arrive at the conclusion that he doesn't exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoo! An analaysis of atheism!

 

proof that God doesn't exist because if it can't be proven than one can't logically say that he doesn't exist

 

There is plenty of proofs against religious descriptions of god :D which is a small part of my bias against religion. I see every religion as the compiled nonsense of primitive irrational though. From my perspective, religion is irrelevant towards proving the existence of god and actually does more damage by attempting to prove it :D

 

I've done alot of thinking about the subject since I was 7 and I still see no rationale in believing in god. Disproving the existence of god is also an impossibility. Any attribute assigned to god by religion does not necessarily make that an attribute of god, and disproving these attributes does not disprove the existence of god but only the validity of those attributes.

 

In other words I don't buy any into the existence of any religious god at all - whether it be Allah, jesus, buddha, or the many gods of all other civilizations.

 

However I realize at the same time this does not mean that god does not exist. So far all I've got is that there is no rationale in believing the gods as described by every civilization.

 

What it comes down to is this. I don't know that god exists. I don't know that god doesn't exist. So I go by the next best thing - probability. This is what my probability is based on.

 

#1 - All attempts at proving the existence of god have failed thus far to pass the test of logic and reason.

#2 - Disproving the existence of god is an impossibility - It is an attempt to prove a negative which is generally either very hard or impossible in this case as it is supposdely outside the scope of human understanding.

 

The fact that alot of people have tried and failed to prove the existence of god increases the probability that gods existence cannot be proven. Recognizing that disproving gods existence is proving a negative increases the probability that gods existence may be false but not provable to be false.

 

Bottom line is, I don't believe in god because there is no reason to believe in God :D

 

That being said I would gladly attack anyones reason to believe in God. I do not provide proofs of Gods lack of existence, I simply point out holes in their reasoning - the hole usually being faith :D - I'm a skeptic :D

Edited by 3dshocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D so basically your purpose is to contribute nothing but only to bring people down? If everyone shared your line of thought I'm sure the world would be a MUCH better place :D :D :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My contribution is in letting people know what is incorrect, I say nothing of what is correct ofcourse :D

 

My contribution in the practical world will be quite great ofcourse. I'm an engineer with great ambition - world domination is at the top of my list of things to do :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My contribution is in letting people know what is incorrect, I say nothing of what is correct ofcourse :D

 

My contribution in the practical world will be quite great ofcourse. I'm an engineer with great ambition - world domination is at the top of my list of things to do :D

 

Most arrogant post of the day.

 

#1 You're not 'letting people know' anything without contributing knowledge. Saying "no! you're wrong!" is NOT contributing knowledge.

 

#2 You're not an engineer until you receive your degree and have attained your license. Until you do, I suggest you quit trying to say you've accomplished the things real engineers have B) Someday you might be able to understand...if you become an engineer.

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm 19, arrogance comes with the job of being an immature teenager :D

 

Yes, you are correct, I am not an engineer at all. Let's just say it's part of pride in our profession while we're still in our studies. I suppose it was misleading to post that I'm an engineer so I'll post a disclaimer right now that I'm not really an engineer but just an engineering student. That being said, I will continue to say that I'm an engineer because its cool :D (just don't take it literally k?)

 

I have worked on several engineering projects however. My highschool was lucky enough to have a teacher who shelled out money to create a robotics department. To date I have led teams in 4 robotics competitions and was a graphical designer in the 5th.

 

#1 You're not 'letting people know' anything without contributing knowledge. Saying "no! you're wrong!" is NOT contributing knowledge.

 

I usually give a reason for something I disagree with, my goal is not to hurt feelings but simply to find the truth :D

 

 

P.S. Socrates - "I am wise in that I know nothing"

Something is gained when you realize a mistake in your way of thinking. Having gone through this several times myself, trust me when I say learning that you made a mistake can be very valuable.

Edited by 3dshocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is plenty of proofs against religious descriptions of god...

3rd...u made it..lol

 

Ok..I didn't explain right...my fault...

To focus right, let's forget about the proofs against religious God.

Let's forget about our friend Epicurus, his paradox,the Anti Christ etc..etc.

If you notice, I never said God as in scriptural God or religious God but just someone that is the primay cause and cause of creation. In other words if want, U can assume that the God he/she/it is an Evil God... ( unlike the religious one)... and for all he cares, You can go 2 hell (hypothetically speaking), the fact remains that he can still be the primary cause and creator.

 

Here is my angle.

The universe is an effect of something or caused by something.

Whatever force caused it must be more powerful than the universe.

Now we may not be able to understand how that thing came into existance, but we can atleast agree that it's more powerful than the universe if it caused it.

There is a very good rationale for such thing's existance than.

 

Now an Athiest doesn't believe that there is a God.

The word ‘atheism’ comes from the negative ‘a’ which means ‘no’ and ‘theos’ which means ‘god.’ Hence, atheism in the most base terms means ‘no god.’

 

Furthermore to doubt is not Athiesm since doubt is based on probabilty as oppose to a firm belief that God does or doesn't exist.

You said yourself that for lack of evidance, you can't say god exists than why for lack of evidance and Athiest would say NO , he doesn't exist? ( reality check.. u r not an athiest :D )

Because if you doubt both possibilties are rational than you are neither a believer or Athiest.

u see my point?

What I still wonder is how do a real Athiest (no pun to 3rdshock)..one who says there is no God at all...justifies creation?

 

My contribution in the practical world will be quite great ofcourse. I'm an engineer with great ambition - world domination is at the top of my list of things to do

Dude...Stop watching Pinky and the Brain. LOL

 

 

 

peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D and if you're done talking about yourself we can continue with the topic :D

..LOL...that was cold.

P.S. Socrates - "I am wise in that I know nothing"

Honestly, I don't think that the man was being humble but simply truthful..maybe he was an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honestly, I don't think that the man was being humble but simply truthful..maybe he was an idiot.

That line by socrates sez alot more then you think it does. It does not literally mean that he knows nothing - read a lil bit of philosophy on a variety of philosophers and you'll be able to appreciate the full meaning of that quote.

 

just to check, have I bypassed as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That line by socrates sez alot more then you think it does. It does not literally mean that he knows nothing - read a lil bit of philosophy on a variety of philosophers and you'll be able to appreciate the full meaning of that quote.

 

just to check, have I bypassed as well?

yeah yeah I know ..Socrates was a genius bla bla bla...I just resent the fact that he didn't apply his wits to evade his execution. I was just trying to be a smart*ss :D

But on a serious note, The man was a genius,I've read Platos republic,the metaphor of cave, the linear reality and all that Jazz.

 

And yes U... too successfully bypassed. :D

 

Maybe if u reread my reply to ur post ( no pun..seriously if u reread it, u'll see it)

Like I said ( with no humbleness) perhaps I didn't pose the question right.

Even from an athiest perspective A creator or creation's essance can't be justified logically, where do Athiests ( the non doubting ones) stand than? the spark that started it all, what other ame but God would u call it ( and by "god" I don't mean the theological one... since athiesm don't believ on revelation, and a theological god only exists in revelations)

 

hope it's clear now. :D

peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3dshocker

 

My special congratulations to 3dshocker because most of the people who believe in God are doing blind belief - he is a Christian, because his father is a Christian; he is a Hindu, because his father is a Hindu; the majority of the people in the world are blindly following the religion of their fathers. An atheist, on the other hand, even though he may belong to a religious family, uses his intellect to deny the existence of God; what ever concept or qualities of God he may have learnt in his religion may not seem to be logical to him. :D

 

Here an atheist agrees with the first part of the Shahada i.e. the Islamic Creed, ‘La ilaaha’ - meaning ‘there is no god . we muslims also believe the same , now the only part left is ‘il lallah’ i.e. ‘BUT Allah’… You completed half jurney, Insha Allah the rest also you can complete.. :D

 

1- Give reasons please, why you are Atheist? ( My question is not about God, what you saw in Atheism? What principles laws, philosophy or any good thing or ideas or manifesto of atheism ?)

2- How you practice atheism in your life?

3- Did you consider Islam before accepting Atheism as your religion? Or

First you accepted Atheism and then concluded that Islam is not right religion for you?

Edited by MP19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its "3D" - it's a name I've been using ever since I started designing using 3d graphics, it's the pinaccle of my creative hobbyist side thus far :D

 

Because if you doubt both possibilties are rational than you are neither a believer or Athiest.

u see my point?

What I still wonder is how do a real Athiest (no pun to 3rdshock)..one who says there is no God at all...justifies creation?

 

You are correct my friend, I'm not a true atheist. I do not believe in god simply from lack of reason to believe in god. You'd never hear me say "god does not exist" in a serious manner simply because I have no proof to back up that claim. The revelation I had was when I first thought "Why live my life according to a logically flawed religious description of god?". At that point I pretty much became an atheist only in the sense that I don't believe in god as described by religion. As for the philosophical version of god, I leave it as a possibility. Considering that I see no reason to believe in god, I'm one of the few people on this planet who truly have "no fear of god" :D

 

1- Give reasons please, why you are Atheist? ( My question is not about God, what you saw in Atheism? What principles laws, philosophy or any good thing or ideas or manifesto of atheism ?)

2- How you practice atheism in your life?

3- Did you consider Islam before accepting Atheism as your religion? Or

First you accepted Atheism and then concluded that Islam is not right religion for you

 

LOL!! manifesto of atheism??

#1 - I didn't like embrace or accept atheism, I just got labeled one the moment I declared to the world that I do not believe in god.

 

#2 - Practising atheism? I guess it'd mean basically living life the way I want to with no bounds. My way of life is selfish. Before you respond to this particular comment read up on Aristotles philosophy on the meaning of life and the explanation for why all rational men are selfish.

 

#3 - Due to my extreme bias against religion which developed when I embraced the philosophy of several philosophers, I have never delved into religious matters since it requires faith in the irrational which is something I simply cannot agree with. Present to me a rational proof for the existence of god, and I will consider religion in general afterward.

 

P.S.S. [at] llogical

 

#1

The universe is an effect of something or caused by something

What's your basis for saying this? Be specific of the theories you're refering to and the proofs for them.

 

#2

Whatever force caused it must be more powerful than the universe.

Reminds me of the time they said heavier objects must fall faster.

 

#3

Now we may not be able to understand how that thing came into existance, but we can atleast agree that it's more powerful than the universe if it caused it.

You cannot assign attributes to something you don't understand, it just doesn't make sense. It's like not understanding why objects fall to earth but saying that we can agree that heavier stuff falls faster - coincidentally alotta ppl agreed with this :D

 

#4

There is a very good rationale for such thing's existance than.

lol :D

Edited by 3dshocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The universe is an effect of something or caused by something

 

What's your basis for saying this? Be specific of the theories you're refering to and the proofs for them.

I thought u would know since u r into philosophy. The basis in general sense is law of causality...

Aristotle, David Hume, and many others took a swing at this it's best to look it up since I may not be bale to articulate it right. But in general the causality states that events do not happen haphazardly and for everything that occurs there is a causes (causes) of something in the sense that if u repeat the cause the effect will be teh event (holding all variables constant).Physically It's also in synch with Newtons 3rd law of motion ( i think) which states that objects remain at rest until another force(s) interacts uppon it. But u may say than the laws of physics only apply to this physical worlds (gravity is different out of space bala bla..) BUt Philosophically speaking it can be applied to rationale. Just so I don;t stress this, another approach would be of the basic principle of existentialism which states that for all existance, there is an essance and in a relation where essance persists exhistance. To start the process however, there must be someone/thing for whom/which exhistance persists essance. Hoping I explained it right but once u digest the info perhaps than u would see why I said that the universe must have an essance which Can or cannot be God.

 

Whatever force caused it must be more powerful than the universe.

 

Reminds me of the time they said heavier objects must fall faster.

u was there when they said that too..just kidding.

It's similar concept but not the same.

physics and rationale are two different diciplines, everything physical can be proven and comprehended by our five senses ( If u bring up non matter or blackholes than it's on.. :D)

besides there is some intelligence to the statement that heavier objects fall quicker.

observe...Try dropping a paper and 50,000 kg dumbell on your foot.

Only when we get to know what density, friction and air resistance is, we can be more specific and realize that actually...dense and airodynamic objects accelerate quicker.

Point is that when physically, hypothesis can't be tested...one can only make rational inferences. Otherwise we can take our 8.0 megapixel cannon and board the spacecraft to take God's picture for show and tell. It's a valid inference to say that the a creation requires a creator.

 

You cannot assign attributes to something you don't understand, it just doesn't make sense. It's like not understanding why objects fall to earth but saying that we can agree that heavier stuff falls faster - coincidentally alotta ppl agreed with this

Forget people, most speople still think that a 10 kg dumbel falls quicker than a 1 pound dumbell.

Forget assigning attributes too then :D

can we atleast say that the cause came b4 the effect atleast ( now don't start with the time dimension thing....) atleast for lack of words can I say that somehow the cause has some sort of edge over effect ...or is it still to much assumption? come on bro.. I'm running out of words here :D

Edited by llogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace Illogical,

 

(err??? Im confused... ) Don't you mean the other way around..that you don't go down that line of thought.

definition of "god of the gaps argument:God of the Gaps is the method of claiming God (or gods) exists by pointing to gaps in our present knowledge of how things work

 

It can work either way I think, I suppose it depends who you are and who you're arguing with! :D (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/God_of_the_gaps"]Wikipedia[/url]

 

Maybe you thought I was smarter than I am, but it's all good, I forgive you. Just so Your train of thoughts don't miss the station of my comprehension maybe u can explain in laments terms... (..No u can't call me a lamer )

 

I'm sure you're an intelligent chap, having had debates of this nature before it's probably my fault for jumping ahead a bit :D

 

In laymans terms what I said (or should have said!) was this:

 

You asked how an atheist would respond to the 'first cause'. Most atheists would answer that they do not know much, if anything, about the first cause, or even if there was a first cause. You also mention the laws of physics, and ask who made them or why are they the way they are? The response to that is very similar, nobody knows for sure. (Though there are theories suggesting that the laws of physics don't exist as we imagine they do.)

This is where I would normally expect somebody to say, "Well if you don't know who or what made the first cause, and you don't know who or what made the laws of physics - then you can't prove that it wasn't God, therefore it could have been!"

 

That is why I used the God of the Gaps argument. As I mentioned in my last post people used to think that the sun was God and others thought that the Sun was maintained by God. They thought this for thousands of years because nobody could explain what the sun actually was using science, so for them it could have been God. The same applies to lightning, earthquakes and other things. Now we know that none of these things that 'could have been caused directly by God', were indeed caused directly by God.

 

The conclusion of my argument goes something like this. We know that in human history, when people cannot explain something some people will claim that it could be God. The human race is gradually gaining more knowledge and every 100 years or so, you could publish a very long list of pheonomeona which are no longer considered to be the hand of God. The atheist is now confronted with this view: "Nobody can definately state why the laws of physics are the way that they are, therefore it could be caused by God."

 

Now we know that none of the pheonomeona our ancestors said, "could be God" were in fact God. So today, why should an atheist have to accept that the laws of physics, "could be God?" There is no reason why one day we cannot explain the laws of physics just as we have been able to explain the problems of the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace Illogical,

 

 

 

It can work either way I think, I suppose it depends who you are and who you're arguing with! :D (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/God_of_the_gaps"]Wikipedia[/url]

 

 

 

I'm sure you're an intelligent chap, having had debates of this nature before it's probably my fault for jumping ahead a bit :D

 

In laymans terms what I said (or should have said!) was this:

 

You asked how an atheist would respond to the 'first cause'. Most atheists would answer that they do not know much, if anything, about the first cause, or even if there was a first cause. You also mention the laws of physics, and ask who made them or why are they the way they are? The response to that is very similar, nobody knows for sure. (Though there are theories suggesting that the laws of physics don't exist as we imagine they do.)

This is where I would normally expect somebody to say, "Well if you don't know who or what made the first cause, and you don't know who or what made the laws of physics - then you can't prove that it wasn't God, therefore it could have been!"

A couple of things...

1.What's with the name calling..I'm not a chap. :D (matter of fact just for spelling layman wrong..call me whatever :D )

2. I get what u mean...

My question was based on the assumption that Athiests (as it literally suggests) do not believe on God.

I can now see that perhaps Athiesm denies existance of a theological god... and that Athiests are indifferent about belief on "A God" due to lack of evidance. I just though that athiests would argue that there is no god period .....and that's what boggled me.

That is why I used the God of the Gaps argument. As I mentioned in my last post people used to think that the sun was God and others thought that the Sun was maintained by God. They thought this for thousands of years because nobody could explain what the sun actually was using science, so for them it could have been God. The same applies to lightning, earthquakes and other things. Now we know that none of these things that 'could have been caused directly by God', were indeed caused directly by God.

Now ...You aRe comin through loud and clear (thanx to Layman)

I would agree here.Humans perceive reality in physical (tangible) and supernatural (like religion ,magic) realms. Starting out with a big supernatural realm,The more we understand things the smaller the supernatural realm gets.

I guess that's the whole point of Gods of Gaps argument.

 

The conclusion of my argument goes something like this. We know that in human history, when people cannot explain something some people will claim that it could be God. The human race is gradually gaining more knowledge and every 100 years or so, you could publish a very long list of pheonomeona which are no longer considered to be the hand of God. The atheist is now confronted with this view: "Nobody can definately state why the laws of physics are the way that they are, therefore it could be caused by God."

 

True ..but maybe what they mean by "cause" is the "ultimate cause"..

Looking at the big picture , here is how they can still be right about that.

Science (or created truth which is the same as science) can explain to us the direct cause of things not the ultimate cause since the causal chain is linked indefinitely.If God is the ultimate cause than, our increasing knowledge doesn't change his position.

It rains because water evaporates and than condenses etc. that's the direct cause. But who created the water and made air less dense than a droplet...the ultimate cause? To ask this would be to engage oursleves in everlating deductive reasoning leading up to the primary cause.Example, You can tell a Bushman "listen stinky... God doesn't make it rain, the burning gases made sun which makes the water evaporate which condenses and forms droplets". The Bushman will probably say listen...God made the gases that burn the sun that evaporate the water that rains...(given that the Bushman knows English)

Also Mathematically speaking theologists can say if knowledge is X and God is Y, our brains are a function (F(x)=God as X approaches infinity. In order words, God is maybe not the direct cause but ultimate cause of everything and we our limited brains can't figure it out although getting closer. I can see why athiests than rather be nuetral and say Maybe God exists and Maybe Not. If it's equally rational to choose either side, what makes Athiests lean towards maybe not?

Peace :D

Edited by llogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×