Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 247358 comments on the Webbunny tumblelog story from Jul 18, 2009, titled Atheism requires as much faith as religion?. In it, Webbunny tumblelog reports that:

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Webbunny tumblelog.

KJV

United States

#147525 Jan 7, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>Can he make an object so big even he can't move it?

No matter what answer you give, you are defining an entity that is NOT all powerful. Hence the paradox.
I hope this helps you.

"Can God make a rock so big he can't pick it up?
by Matt Slick

This question is representative of the type of paradoxes atheists use in attempts to prove that God cannot exist. It works like this: God is supposed to be omnipotent. If he is omnipotent, then he can create a rock so big that he can't pick it up. If he cannot make a rock like this, then he is not omnipotent. If he can make a rock so big he can't pick it up, then he isn't omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore, God is not omnipotent, and does not exist.

Is this logical? No. The problem is that the argument omits some crucial information and draws an inaccurate conclusion.

What the above "paradox" lacks is vital information concerning God's nature. His omnipotence is not something independent of His nature; it is part of His nature. God has a nature, and his attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else.

For example, I have human nature. I can run. But, I cannot outrun a lion. My nature simply does not permit it. My ability to run is connected to my nature, and I cannot violate it. So too with God. His omnipotence is connected to His nature, since being omnipotent is part of what He is. Omnipotence, then, must be consistent with what He is, and not with what He is not, since His omnipotence is not an entity to itself. Therefore, God can only do those things that are consistent with his nature. He cannot lie because it is against his nature to do so. Not being able to lie does not mean He is not God or that he is not all powerful. Also, He cannot cease to be God. Since He is in all places at all times, if he stopped existing then he wouldn't be in all places at all times. Therefore, He cannot cease to exist without violating his own nature.

The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of his own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can't pick it up, or make something bigger than himself, etc. But, not being able to do this does not mean He is not God, nor that he is not omnipotent. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with his desire, within the realm of his unlimited and universal power, which we do not possess. This does not mean He can violate his own nature. If He did something inconsistent with his nature, then he would be self-contradictory. If God were self-contradictory, he would not be true. Likewise, if He did something that violated his nature, like make a rock so big he can't pick it up, He would also not be true since that would be a self-contradiction. Since truth is not self-contradictory, and neither is God, if he were not true then he would not be God. But God is true and not self-contradictory. Therefore, God cannot do something that violates his own nature."

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147526 Jan 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Well now, you are adding an assertion to create a strawman argument. There was never a mention of it being "discarded" only that one is there, not to mention the type of teapot was never detailed, so the ones we associate today with "teapot" are not the only possible ones applicable.
Then you attempt to shift the burden of proof yet again. You still have no evidence that your deity exists, that's it. Until such evidence is presented then your deity is just an assumption.
1. Discarded teapot was an attempt at humor and not an attempt to create a straw man.
2. The diety is not "mine".
3. Central point is their is actual evidence against the teapot vs no evidence against the diety.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147527 Jan 7, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
And that "something" could be the "Universe" or the "Multiverse".
Yes it could be.
KJV

United States

#147528 Jan 7, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>That was a good book. Did you read the robot Trilogy? Or the Foundation Trilogy? Or 'Robots & Empire' that tied these 2 epics together?

And it also has nothing to do with the subject, but I understand your need to deflect when you have no argument on point.
Robots of Dawn trilogy was very good!
Yes I read them all. I think I read him for a year straight. Could not put it down.

Deflect?
No just adding some amusement. After that's what I'm here for. Fun and games.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147529 Jan 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Stars are the result of matter-energy interaction.
Must we really cointinue this? At some point we get to an as yet unexplainable substance whose origin is unexplainable.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147530 Jan 7, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
So an eternal intelligence is required to create humans but was not itself created makes more sense to you than an eternal universe?
(which may or may not be cyclic ... or the "expansion" we perceive could just be a local phenomenon that goes beyond the range of our sensors ... or countless other natural explanations which may at least be testable at some point).
To me "eternal" in and of itself is beyond the realm of the natural world.We can't explain it.That something or anything just "is" and always has been is something that feels visceraaly wrong to me.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147531 Jan 7, 2013
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
At least you are willing to ask questions! That is a far cry better than most theists we experience on here.
Please keep in mind the immortal words of Isaac Asimov --
"Are there things in the Universe that we cannot know in the usual way of observing and measuring, but that we can know in some other way -- intuition, revelation, mad insight?
"If so, how can you know that what you know in these non-knowing ways is really so?
"Anything you know without knowing, others can know only through your flat statement without any proof other than 'I know!'
"All this leads to such madness that I, for one, am content with the knowable. That is enough to know."
In my case its not a matter of necessarily knowing but what feels right to me. The only truth I can admit to is I don't know if what I feel is, what actually is. I think thats true for all of us.We simply don't know one way or the other.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147532 Jan 7, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet, most people refuse to learn enough mathematics to understand what we have found so far. To me, that suggests they don't want to do any real work which leads them to seek simplistic answers to complicated questions. And *that* is what they find in religion.
I'm willing to take mathemactians at their word when they explain beyond my comprehension. However I also can't discount the the beliefs and opinions of people like John Lennox the Oxford mathematician who whole heartedly believes in God.What I find too much of on these threads is radicals insulting each other and making assumptions about posters who they suspect is the enemy.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147533 Jan 7, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"He could help but create me to follow a certain path! " LOL
No you make your own discussions.
He gave that to all mankind. Freedom to disobey his laws.
"He" because we choose to refer to God in a known image to us. There is no he or she in heaven.
But omniscience means he knows my decision before I make it.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147534 Jan 7, 2013
christianity is EVIL wrote:
Nice link,thanks

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147535 Jan 7, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
..."When Christians and atheists engage in debate concerning the question, Does God exist? atheists frequently assert that the entire burden of proof rests on the Christian. This, however, is a false assertion. As Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has stated, when an interrogative such as Does God exist? is debated each side must shoulder the burden of proof and provide support for what they consider to be the correct answer. This is unlike debating a proposition such as God does exist, where the burden of proof rests entirely with the affirmative side. It follows then that when debating the question of God's existence, both the Christian and the atheist are obligated to provide support for their position. The Christian should insist that the atheist provide proof as to God's alleged nonexistence. This, however, leads to a logical bind for the atheist.
By definition, atheism is the world view that denies the existence of God. To be more specific, traditional atheism (or offensive atheism) positively affirms that there never was, is not now, and never will be a God in or beyond the world. But can this dogmatic claim be verified?
The atheist cannot logically prove God's nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the atheist's claim one would have to possess godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The offensive atheist's dogmatic claim is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the atheist's attempt to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition. The Christian should therefore emphasize that the offensive atheist is unable to provide a logical disproof of God's existence."
But this is a straw man fallacy argument, You claim some deity exist, I simply doubt the validity of YOUR.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147536 Jan 7, 2013
*** Typo *** should read --

But this is a straw man fallacy argument, You claim some deity exist, I simply doubt the validity of YOUR claim.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#147537 Jan 7, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope this helps you.
"Can God make a rock so big he can't pick it up?
by Matt Slick
This question is representative of the type of paradoxes atheists use in attempts to prove that God cannot exist. It works like this: God is supposed to be omnipotent. If he is omnipotent, then he can create a rock so big that he can't pick it up. If he cannot make a rock like this, then he is not omnipotent. If he can make a rock so big he can't pick it up, then he isn't omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore, God is not omnipotent, and does not exist.
Is this logical? No. The problem is that the argument omits some crucial information and draws an inaccurate conclusion.
What the above "paradox" lacks is vital information concerning God's nature. His omnipotence is not something independent of His nature; it is part of His nature. God has a nature, and his attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else.
For example, I have human nature. I can run. But, I cannot outrun a lion. My nature simply does not permit it. My ability to run is connected to my nature, and I cannot violate it. So too with God. His omnipotence is connected to His nature, since being omnipotent is part of what He is. Omnipotence, then, must be consistent with what He is, and not with what He is not, since His omnipotence is not an entity to itself. Therefore, God can only do those things that are consistent with his nature. He cannot lie because it is against his nature to do so. Not being able to lie does not mean He is not God or that he is not all powerful. Also, He cannot cease to be God. Since He is in all places at all times, if he stopped existing then he wouldn't be in all places at all times. Therefore, He cannot cease to exist without violating his own nature.
The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of his own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can't pick it up, or make something bigger than himself, etc. But, not being able to do this does not mean He is not God, nor that he is not omnipotent. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with his desire, within the realm of his unlimited and universal power, which we do not possess. This does not mean He can violate his own nature. If He did something inconsistent with his nature, then he would be self-contradictory. If God were self-contradictory, he would not be true. Likewise, if He did something that violated his nature, like make a rock so big he can't pick it up, He would also not be true since that would be a self-contradiction. Since truth is not self-contradictory, and neither is God, if he were not true then he would not be God. But God is true and not self-contradictory. Therefore, God cannot do something that violates his own nature."
Now that's some fancy singin' and dancin' there! So I cannot do anything that is inconsistent with my nature, so by this twisted logic I would be omnipotent too. That's absurd.

To accept this argument is to redefine the word "all" such that "all powerful" is some strange twilight zone parody of "all". You really fell for this lame apologetic?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#147538 Jan 7, 2013
Anyone here familiar with CTMU theory?

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#147539 Jan 7, 2013
I could care less if non believers identify themselves as ultra super cool non deluded people of the awesome, we are not hung up on labels like you are. And the only reason many non believers avoid the atheist title is because of negative baggage thrown on the term from believers. Non believers are non believers regardless of what they dub themselves.

And non believers are growing at an alarming rate for the leaders of faith.

Just accept it.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Deal with it?
LOL, ok.
2% of Americans are self-identified atheists.
Dealt with.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#147540 Jan 7, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Not that I cannot provide evidence and not that the earth and moons and planets don't show any signs or the fact that these threads are loaded with point after point of evidence. No it's not that I can't provide it it that I won't!
If you refuse to provide evidence of your assertions, then you are more dishonest than I had originally thought.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#147541 Jan 7, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong
The evidence is there. You choose not to except it as evidence. There are 2.03% of the worlds population that is atheist! 97.07% don't agree with you. And 35% of the earths population whole heartily accept the evidence. That is like about 33% more then you have.
"The CIA World Factbook gives the world population as 7,021,836,029 (July 2012 est.) and the distribution of religions as Christian 33.35%(of which Roman Catholic 16.83%, Protestant 6.08%, Orthodox 4.03%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 22.43%, Hindu 13.78%, Buddhist 7.13%, Sikh 0.36%, Jewish 0.21%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 11.17%, non-religious 9.42%, atheists 2.04%.
Wow. A whole 2.04% you guys are kicking some ass. LOL
Type all the lie you want survey after survey shows Atheist below 2.5%"
The CIA factbook does not show its methodology for arriving at those figures nor is there any indication of how old the data on which it is based are. Other sources are more transparent, notably the Pew Forum and ARIS. Without that metadata, there is no way of knowing how reliable its statistics are.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#147542 Jan 7, 2013
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Discarded teapot was an attempt at humor and not an attempt to create a straw man.
2. The diety is not "mine".
3. Central point is their is actual evidence against the teapot vs no evidence against the diety.
You contradicted yourself in the last statement. You cannot disprove that there is a teapot orbiting the sun.

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#147543 Jan 7, 2013
Oh so your IQ just got lower I see. Thanks for clearing that up. So do you accept the divine teapot that brewed up the universe and all life on earth?
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh so you do believe in a diety.You just call it a teapot. Thanks for clearing that up.

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

#147544 Jan 7, 2013
Imagination doesn't qualify as evidence.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
That's incorrect KK you know we have evidence you have ruled it out for you and only you. The evidence is still here.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 3 min BenAdam 8,050
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min Robert F 603,330
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 min Doctor Justice_ 878,872
Poll It is fine when the brother makes children of h... 47 min pepertoa 0
Palmers farmed in Hayti area? 57 min Sam Vein 1
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr USaWorldWarMongerer 177,851
what do americans think of mexicans? (Sep '08) 1 hr USaWorldWarMongerer 444
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 5 hr Pegasus 272,879
The Christian Atheist debate 8 hr MrAnderson9 3,845
More from around the web