Atheism 0. Assuming God to exist |
Assuming God to exist is to breach logic. We assume nothing and ask for evidence in the positive - we do not assume the existence of something and then look for reasons not to believe it. In law,we have the rule of assumed innocence,and so to here we assume that the lack of the circumstance is the case,and proceed therefrom to find evidence that it maybe so. Assuming God,is an inversion of logic procedure,it then becomes the duty of the atheist to remove the belief from the believers mind - it is NOT our duty to rid you of your beliefs - it is up to you to justify it with evidence. If I said "I believe the moon is made of cheese" I would expect that people would ask why and push me for evidence FOR it,it is not for me to have them try and remove my cheesy theory from MY mind,as there is NO reason to presume the moon is made of cheese. Similarly,the onus is upon Christians to explain why God exists in the first place - it cannot be an axiomatic assertion.
CONFIRMATION
BIAS
RUSSELL'S
TEAPOT
OCCAM'S
RAZOR |
Yahoo QA:
OMG Cat
Open QuestionShow me another »
Why do people try and argue against evolution/natural selection/big bang, with such crazy comparisons?
Fine to have an opinion, or even logic, disagreeing with these theories. That's healthy.
But the "but there are still mon(k)eys" argument and the like just demonstrates that you've made no attempt to even try and comprehend it as a theory. And are therefore never going to come up with anything that remotely challenges it.
Or the "I'm still waiting for a universe happen in this jar" classic.
I've just read one with the implication every other monkey born would be a human if evolution was correct. Which is about as silly as they come.
Just as silly as saying, " if evolution is true, why are there still bacteria?"
AgriCult
http://youtu.be/t6b4Vy0aGSU
1 day ago Report Abuse
2 Rating: Good Answer3 Rating: Bad Answer
steven lishman
i was unaware that "moneys" was an argument against evolution.
Source(s):
Non tolerate realist.
Edited 1 day ago Report Abuse
4 Rating: Good Answer3 Rating: Bad Answer
(TLS) Matthew 24:27
Why is the science community so opposed to creationism?
http://www.gotquestions.org/science-crea…
1 day ago Report Abuse
2 Rating: Good Answer3 Rating: Bad Answer
Doug
You are correct in stating that there are a lot of straw man logical fallacies seen here on Y!A. What you forgot to mention is that 90% are posted by atheists. I believe the reason for this is that Hitchens and Dawkins use so many straw men in their books, that their followers think it's OK.
But some Christians do post straw men here. It's illogical when they do it, too.
Edited 1 day ago Report Abuse
3 Rating: Good Answer5 Rating: Bad Answer
Hendrix
Evolution and The Big Bang are overall still "theories."
They are highly credible in my opinion and I accept them as the most "logical" as for now.
But I do not think they are FACT 100% true, at least evolution.
The Big Bang theory is accurate, even though it doesn't explain what happened before the starting point and just from that point on.
Oh and by the way "money" is already plural, you don't need an "s", and it doesn't make any sense in what you wrote.
1 day ago Report Abuse
1 Rating: Good Answer5 Rating: Bad Answer
Rattles
Your rantings are not going to make us believers !
1 day ago Report Abuse
0 Rating: Good Answer3 Rating: Bad Answer
Jim the evolution cruncher
The "but there are still moneys" argument does present a thorn in the religion of evolution.
If we share a common ancestor with the apes, why is there so much intellectual difference?
A clear explanation for this argument has yet to be presented.
1 day ago Report Abuse
1 Rating: Good Answer4 Rating: Bad Answer
KaS
Many see themselves as having evolved from either primordial ooze or a common ancestor.
I am unable to see it myself.
I am here now.
1 day ago Report Abuse
0 Rating: Good Answer2 Rating: Bad Answer
Creepis Kryp
Mental Gymnastics
These people aren't worried about flaws in logic.
They have been playing the sweeping generalization trolls for centuries before the internet.
They hope for a day when skepticism is equally weighted. Until then, they bide their time with jokes and tall tales to mirror how much they feel insulted.
1 day ago Report Abuse
3 Rating: Good Answer0 Rating: Bad Answer
Blackshe...
I Think because it would it would be really satisfying to prove wrong people like you who have a closed mind to anything science hasn't taught you. There are plenty of facts that challenge the big bang theory and other evolutionary THEORIES because that's all they are. No-one can prove anything 100% with respect to this. So why can you just dismiss other theories as 'illogical' or 'crazy' when they have the same probability of being correct?
Source(s):
me.
1 day ago Report Abuse
0 Rating: Good Answer3 Rating: Bad Answer
Joseph
Most of us disagree with evolution because it is being taught as fact in school. if you ask most people in high school if evolution is true they will give you the weirdest look like why did u ask me a dumb question like that. Mostly because it has been pounded into out brains since pre-school, and its still a theory. Not to mention that a lot of people who believe in evolution also attack christians for their theory, creation/ intelligent design. so it really goes both ways. There are several probs with evolution that most people choose to overlook because to lose evolution to believe in they have really no other choice than christianity or nothing. Things like circular reasoning, where Charles Darwin and sir CharlesLlyell, when they made the fossil record, used index fossils to date the rock layers and those very rock layers to date fossils. the problem is carbon14 dating didn't even come into existence until 1949, and it probably wouldn't unless people believed in evolution, so thanks evolution, but even carbon14 dating is still only accurate up to 2000 years, after that carbon breaks down exponentially after that. so where did Darwin and Lyell get the dates for the fossils in the geologic column/ fossil record? no idea... Another thing is the big bang theory, the explanation i get about the big bang theory is that a mass the size of a neutrino, containing all the mass of the universe in it, exploded and that was the big bang. Ok that's cool, but how did it get there? one of two answers arise, 1 i don't know, and 2 oh, well these big bangs happen every so many billions of years... uh neither one has still answered where it started, because NO ONE can say for sure. in the span of our lives we will live a maximum of 120~ years and we can never look into the past or future only the present. science can try to give an idea but science, as being an observation of occurrences, can never see the past. Do you know about the petrified trees going through several rock strata at one time? Just look up "petrified trees going through rock layers' and a ton of images will show up. most people only find this curious, but how can this happen? trees do not grow through several feet of rock layers to get to the sun, and you would think that after a 100 million years that one of those dead trees would fall once in a while so how is it straight up? the rock and the trees had to be there hardening at the same time, and what else can do this? a flood. even the grand canyon is a washed out spill way. the river could not have carved the canyon, the canyon walls are 1600 ft above where the river enters into the canyon, and from where i live and have been water doesnt travel that far up hill. The rock layers that the grand canyon shows have no soil between them, you would think after millions of years there would be some kind of something between those rock layers. Lastly the geologic column is not correct in 85% of the world, how did darwin and lyell come up with this column if they hadn't seen all the rock layer around the world? there is more than enough factual evidence to debunk evolution, schools and states choose not to accept it since that would cause not only an uproar in the scientific community but also a ton of money extracting that info from the text books. i don't care if they take it out or not, i just want them to start teach other theories on the origins of the universe and let people come to their own conclusions.
1 day ago Report Abuse
0 Rating: Good Answer4 Rating: Bad Answer
Hob
The creationist cretins and anti-evolutionary eejits are mainly in the USA, Iran, Afghanistan, and other backward, intellectually under-developed countries saddled with religion following leaders.
1 day ago Report Abuse
3 Rating: Good Answer0 Rating: Bad Answer
Ricardo
Since they have nothing intelligent to argue with it is all they can grasp at.
1 day ago Report Abuse
2 Rating: Good Answer0 Rating: Bad Answer
Member
I love your examples - the one I am fond of is the Christian who said to me - "How can man be the most advanced when lizards can grow their tails back?" the ignorance astounds me- they think they are so informed and have struck an achilles heel when all they have done is show themselves up for the dumb bunnies we know they are?
To those who ask why we have a problem with creation - it is easy - it is WRONG and is proven so by the facts - just as the flat earth view was or the terracentricity of the solar system - that is how BACKward your views are about creation.
Mankind has always imbued nature with Gods - Thor the thunder God - Vulcan the god of the volcano- because we anthropomorphised what we did not understand about nature - the last bastion is the universe - for those who do not comprehend how it came about - they stick a thing with a mans face on it - arrogantly asserting it must be something like them that created it - negating the fact that the universe is old enough to contain myriad alien intelligences - and since we do actually have some idea how the universe started - creation is just a silly child's story for people with small amounts of brain material.
To those that say "these theories have not been proven 100%" - again they show their ignorance - nothing is realistically going to be proven 100% in science - that is not how science works - so again - you have no idea about that which you speak. Those things we accept today are built on the back of other theories - for instance - Newton is not 100% right about gravity - nevertheless it got a man to the moon and continues to get probes to planets - Newton was corrected by Einstein - who also is being challenged by modern theory - if you wait for Evolution to be 100% correct you will wait till time ends - it is currently the BEST theory of how life diversifies and I challenge the naysayers to come up with a better one.
Creationists grasp at straws because they come up with "Intelligent Design" - they see science works and then seek to purloin its ways to lend credibility to their nonsense -showing that actually they accept science's power to tell truth.
Most of the creationists responding here have only done what the questioner posited : Shown their ignorance of science by responding and making a fool of themselves.
See also GODLESS answer:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?…
How science is not 100% and Maths can prove 100%:
Mutilated chess board : http://templarseries.fortunecity.com/che…
Source(s):
http://templarseries.fortunecity.com/big…
http://leebor2.741.com/atheism.html
http://templarseries.fortunecity.com/Yah…
http://leebor2.741.com/ID.html
http://templarseries.fortunecity.com/Yah…
Edited 22 hours ago Report Abuse
0 Rating: Good Answer0 Rating: Bad Answer
Answer in Religion & Spirituality
What is the difference between Acharya and Guru?
Why atheist women claim not to believe in God, but in?
Which churches still uphold the confessional!?
Christians do you think this would be just?
arabiani...
Resolved QuestionShow me another »
How do you explain universe?
i don't have a PhD or anything but the more I learned about the universe and modern physics, the more i realized that modern scientists and gurus are clueless about the nature and basic structure of universeeverytime someone asked a valid question, they're giving those technical correct but basic telling you nothing answers why don't they admit that they don't know anything about universe
2 weeks ago Report Abuse
Malky Malky
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
OKAY...... So, if scientists are clueless, then why ask us? We're even less clued in. Duh!
mmalky
Edited 2 weeks ago Report Abuse
3 Rating: Good Answer0 Rating: Bad Answer
Asker's Rating:Asker's Comment:
ok
Fitz
Just because you don't understand the answer does not make it incorrect. There is much we don't know, but the scientific community does not easily accept something as fact without a lot of evidence to back it up.
Which questions do you mean and maybe I can help shed some light on your confusion?
-edit-
@Nathan: It sounds like you do not really know what a scientific theory is. Theory does not mean non factual.
Hypothesis: Educated guess
Scientific Theory: A theory makes predictions, has stood up to scientific testing, but most importantly it explains something. It gives you the WHY.
Scientific Law: A phenomenon proven to occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met. It explains WHAT something does, not why.
So here's how it works in real life. One day Johannes Kepler was observing the planets and thought they must move according to some rules of some kind (his hypothesis or educated guess). From much observation he realized they always move exactly according to rules after all, and was able to explain WHAT the planets were doing (Kepler's Laws Of Planetary Motion). We then later discovered that it was gravity that causes them to move this way. The Theory of Gravity explained WHY the planets moved the way they did.
My point is that gravity will NEVER become a law no matter how factual it is. It will always be the THEORY of gravity even though it is 100% factual.
Source(s):
Thumbs down? I don't get it.
Edited 1 week ago Report Abuse
1 Rating: Good Answer4 Rating: Bad Answer
We "know" a lot about the Universe. the problem is that there is A LOT more that we do not know. You are right, we don't know much. But many people act like we do.
Specially when looking at Quantum Mechanics, it doesn't fit with the laws and mathematics we "know" to be true today. So either mathematics is wrong as we know it or there is a lot that we still need to find out.
That is the beauty of science, is that we keep learning. Finding out that many of our theories are wrong, isn't a bad thing, it just means that we need to keep looking and make new theories.
I am a Christian, but I love science. And Christianity works great with science even though most people would disagree with me. The more I learn about the Universe, the more I realize how little we know and how this couldn't have happened just by chance. Anyways, keep learning and researching. Space is awesome.
2 weeks ago Report Abuse
1 Rating: Good Answer4 Rating: Bad Answer
Member
You don't have a PHD - and so you don't know anything about the universe.
Physicists have PHDs and they do know about the universe.
You have to admit people are smarter than you - it is quite easy to explain the universe I do it all the time - and I don't have a Phd - so it is possible for you to be smarter than you are - I THINK.
What you really mean is "The universe is too complex for YOU to understand".
Source(s):
http://templarseries.fortunecity.com/ind…
http://leebor2.741.com/physics.html
2 weeks ago Report Abuse
1 Rating: Good Answer3 Rating: Bad Answer
oklatono...
The honest scientist DOES admit that they are ignorant, BUT scientists usually DO know a lot more than a person who is jealous who insists that scientists don't know anything and that those scientists HAVE to admit that they don't know anything. THAT is a superb example of projective identification and transference. You project your OWN ignorance onto the scientist and then insult the scientist for being ignorant and then claim that the scientist is arrogant and condescending, and that the scientist isn't nearly as smart as the scientist thinks they are. The scientist doesn't CARE how smart some one else thinks they are, except in academia and among a peer group of other scientists. "...98% OF EVERYTHING around here is politics..." Read the letters sections of some scientific journals and watch how scientists can act like bullies. "... Your Ph.D. mentor is/was an idiot/crackpot/insane ..." is a pretty standard reaction among newly minted Ph.D.s
"...Projection and Projective Identification - Abuser in Denial Message List
Reply Message #5002 of 6794 < Prev | Next >
Projection
We all have an image of how we "should be". Freud called it the "Ego Ideal". But sometimes we experience emotions and drives or have personal qualities which don't sit well with this idealized construct. Projection is when we attribute to others these unacceptable, discomfiting, and ill-fitting feelings and traits that we possess. This way we disown these discordant features and secure the right to criticize and chastise others for having or displaying them. When entire collectives (nations, groups, organizations, firms) project, Freud calls it the Narcissism of Small Differences.
Projective Identification
Projection is unconscious. People are rarely aware that they are projecting onto others their own ego-dystonic and unpleasant characteristics and feelings. But, sometimes, the projected content is retained in the subject's awareness. This creates a conflict. On the one hand, the patient cannot admit that the emotions, traits, reactions, and behaviors that he so condemns in others are really his. On the other hand, he can't help but being self-aware. He fails to erase from his consciousness the painful realization that he is merely projecting.
So, instead of denying it, the subject explains unpleasant emotions and unacceptable conduct as reactions to the recipient's behavior. "She made me do it!" is the battle cry of projective identification.
We all have expectations regarding the world and its denizens. Some people expect to be loved and appreciated - others to be feared and abused. The latter behave obnoxiously and thus force their nearest and dearest to hate, fear, and "abuse" them. Thus vindicated, their expectations fulfilled, they calm down. The world is rendered once more familiar by making other people behave the way they expect them to. "I knew you would cheat on me! It was clear I couldn't trust you!". ..."
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/nar…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projective_…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologic…
http://jppr.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/con…
http://jppr.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/con…
Edit: IF you really need to have an explanation simplified, TELL the person who is trying to explain it that you don't understand. Most scientist CANNOT READ YOUR MIND. It is NOT a nothing answer. It's aa nothing answer ONLY if you don't understand the explanation, but you obviously DO understand the explanation, so now all you are doing is trying to provoke a response or pick an argument so your ego will be fed. DON"WHINE online. That's condescending.
I'm going to Wal-Mart to pick up a few things, so I'm not going to be able to feed your ego any more for awhile.
Edited 2 weeks ago Report Abuse
2 Rating: Good Answer5 Rating: Bad Answer
Nathan Aragon
Answer hidden due to its low rating Hide
All scientists have come up with are theories. Well supported theories however. I don't think scientists will admit to not knowing anything about the universe because everyone likes explanations. We don't like feeling like we are in the dark. No one was there when the universe was created, so all scientists can go on is theories.
I don't know about you, but I don't understand why these theories about the origin of the universe and evolution are taught in school. Schools teach evolution and the origin of the universe as a fact, but they shouldn't.
Edited 2 weeks ago Report Abuse
1 Rating: Good Answer6 Rating: Bad Answer
When queried about his responses to the QA Question,regarding how QP is at odds with maths ,why the universe cannot have chance in it,and why science is not at odds with God, John said:
From: Yahoo! Answers <answers-alert@cc.yahoo-inc.com>
To: hazelhurstres@yahoo.co.uk
Sent: Wednesday, 21 December 2011, 10:33
Subject: Yahoo! Answers: You have received a message from another user!
Hello ? (hazelhurstres),
You have received a message from another user!
From: ?
Subject: Re: QP
Message: Hey,
Its a early so please excuse any spelling mistakes.
Lets look at this logically. Assume that you believe in God and specifically are a Christian. How can a religion, that worships a God who created everything that science observes, be against science? I believe that since God created everything, including the laws that govern the Universe, so how can science possible be opposite from God?
The only difference is that you look at science and see a way to take God out of the picture. I look at science and see a way to learn more about God. Its like different doctors who look at the same set of symptoms, but have different diagnoses.
So just a recap.
1. God created the Universe and everything in it
2. Science observers the Universe and everything in it
3. So how can science be opposite of God?
Kind regards,
John
Re: Yahoo! Answers: You have received a message from another user!
TO: 1 recipient
Show Details
This is the way my partner USED to view it,your mistake is you cannot assume God created the universe.
Occam's razor dictates the simplest assumption is the correct one - and God is not the simplest solution.For he is a complex entity which needs explanation from whence he came.
Further - mankind has posited all kinds of Gods - the God of Thunder to explain Thunder and Lighting- Water spirits to explain the movement of water- all of whom have been shown to be natural phenomena and laws. The universe is no different.
Historically - as the BBC showed last night -The Israelites peeled off from the Canaanites - who were polytheistic,rather like the Romans - for their own reasons monotheism was pushed in favour of polytheism - the God BAAL is presumed to be the one they pushed for - he has no distinction apart from being in charge of the other Gods - much like Zeus - we know Zeus is a myth - we also know BAAL is a myth - just from different places and times - Yaweh is posited as being Baal,and even if he is not - Yaweh suffers from being Christians solution to "How did the universe start?". All they are doing is the same thing has other people who say "Why does aVolcano roar?"...."because Vulcan is at work smelting iron" - it is a woeful and pitiful excuse for their own ignorance,to stick a man's face where a natural phenomena should be.
Further still - there is no discrepancy between QP and maths - it is QP that explains how the universe does not need God at all in order to come into being,purely because it does indeed make used of CHANCE - regardless of what you believe about it - this is true.
So along with my partner you fail at hurdle 1:
1. Assuming God's existence is a mistake -you have no right to do so. Anyone can claim any God did the same thing- thus on Yahoo QA,atheists allude to the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and suggest it is just as likely that this created the universe,since there is as much evidence for that,as God.
2. Is correct- but the observations of science show that all is natural phenomena and nowhere does God come into it - Christians have been painted further and further into a God of the gaps" - the gap is now so small that to say "God made things" is absurd - he clearly did not - science shows this.
3. If indeed God did exist as Christians have it- then science could not be against God - you are right about that - indeed Newton used his maths to try to "investigate God's world" -as even Newton was naive to how God was not in the picture,living as he did in times before what we know today.
Much like others - your logic is faulty.
http://templarseries.fortunecity.com/Yahoo/Templarser/atheism.html - check out the numbered points.
If they are not good enough - try this:
http://www.godisimaginary.com/
I challenge you to refute those points without resorting to "I have faith that God exsts"- what you personally believe is not how we determine what is true in science - so the way that believers arrive at "God exists" is an affront to science,so in that sense they are not good bedfellows.
Thanks for responding - I note that you omitted the queries about QP - which I can only take to mean that you have not that great an understanding of. Sooner or later,if you accept science - you will have your faith removed -as it is incorrect - just as Flat Earther's have slid into the pages of History,as have Terra-centrists.
From: ?
Subject: Re: QP
Message: Hey again,
I didn't respond to the physics questions, because like you said I don't know enough about it yet. I'm only 20 years old and what I do know is only from reading online.
Also I typed my answer on my iphone, so it was easier to address the more important issue.
I can assume God is real, in science you assume all kinds of things as well.
Also, trust me, you will never convince me that God is not real. Just like I will never convince you that God is real. All I can do is tell you what I believe in, whether you accept it is up to God.
Anyways, the logic still holds that if God is real than we have to accept science as well. So as someone who believes in God, I also have to learn about science. Plus I love science.
Thanks for a great discussion, if you want to talk more that would be great. I'd love to learn all that I can about Physics and other knowledge that you may have to offer.
Also thanks you for not being like more of the people on yahoo answers.
Kind regards,
John
Related Articles
|
|