Reply to Disclosing atheism

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Disclosing atheism"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]To genuinely engage with Christian’s is to accept that faith is a reliable source of truth to them without resorting to insults[/quote]

Seems like Christians who really believed in their faith would not be insulted by accurate comparisons to Santa and the Easter bunny.  All three are believed by children, correct?  Only adults are encouraged to believe in God, correct?

Clearly God, does much more than the other two, and there are whole, and numerous, belief structures built around God, but they are all supernatural and it requires faith to believe in them.

I can see how some people would be swayed by the similarities among these beings, but if your faith is strong, no problem. You can reject what you no longer believe in and continue believing in what you want to.[/quote]

DP
The universe began from nothingness, something came from nothing or any explanation you have is as much faith as my belief in a Creator.[/quote]

First that is not what Atheists believe.  Atheists have a stand on a single proposition: whether or not to believe in a god. There is no atheist position on the creation of the universe.

As for your cosmological inquiry, the answer is we don't know what happened before the big bang, or even if there was a before the big bang (there is no evidence of it).  It's possible time began with the big bang, like the first frame of a piece of film, with nothing before it.  But we don't know, which is a position that does not require ANY faith.

And your definition of "from nothing" makes "nothing" logically impossible as it defines "nothing" making it something.  Hard to wrap your mind around, but that is what you are doing.

And on top of that, [b]any demands you put on the creation of the universe also need to apply to any creator[/b], and there is infinite regress... it's also a presuppositional fallacy...

...so you see why cosmological arguments for god are highly flawed.[/quote]

NP. I disagree with the bolded and find the cosmological arguments convincing, but this is why the "Santa Claus" claims are wrong. There's no serious philosophical defense of the existence of Santa. There is for God, even if you don't find the arguments convincing.[/quote]

Sounds like you are saying God is more believable than Santa because serious  philosophers  have defended the reality of God.  Is that right?

Would you also agree that both God and Santa are beliefs for which there is no scientific evidence?[/quote]

I'm saying it because of the seriousness of the arguments, not the seriousness of the philosophers, but maybe that's splitting hairs. The cosmological arguments for the existence of God are based on evidence in that they are inferences drawn from observations about the universe: the fact that the universe exists in the first place, the fact things have causes, etc. Meanwhile there's neither evidence nor philosophical argument for the existence of Santa. You may find that the cosmological arguments don't persuade you, but people who accept them do so on the basis of applying logic to observations about that universe. Santa belief isn't like that. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics