What's the strongest argument for atheism?

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 459
#391
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,775
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
But you changed it at one point! Because it was obviously wrong:

(IFF) omniscient omnipotent creator = exist (THEN) everything that exists = a part of omniscient omnipotent creator
look, the whole point of having a conversation is to communicate and explore ideas

you obviously misunderstood my original conditional statement

so i modified it in an attempt to help you understand


that's what we're doing


you know, communicating




Which all you have done here then is to sy that "universe", "everything", "god" are all interchangable. Essentially all you have done is add another word arbitrarily to our vocabulary and confused what we mean by "god" and
it's a little more than that

the only way for anything to be considered "all-powerful" and "all-knowing" is for it to actually be everything everywhere at all times


Adding nothing to the conversation because all your saying is "the universe is the universe", "everything is everything", "god is god"
it wasn't my idea, and it wasn't spinoza's idea either

it is based on the theological claim that "god is omnipotent and omniscient and the creator of all things"

spinoza merely pointed out that there is only one solution to this definition


Which completely misses the point of the fundamental questions we ask about this topic in the first place, namly from where and why.
sure, you're welcome to ask or answer whatever "fundamental questions" you find interesting


I see now why people called Spinosa an atheist. He did not believe in god, he believed in the universe! He just called it "god"
it's actually pretty simple, but it is just a conditional statement, i'm not certain spinoza held this belief personally

And if you adhere to this philosophy that makes you an atheist and not a deist. You believe in the universe. You just call it "god" and then say it answers those fundamental questions.
i generally let people tell me how they personally prefer to label themselves


It would be as if I have an orange but I insist that it is a knife and it cuts.
not exactly

maybe you could write a conditional statement for that one
#392
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,029
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
If we could set an agreed " limit of time"  for theists to prove a god exists. 
Thennnnnnnnn, i can be a Atheist. 
Thus " providing " a platform to launch a stong argument for Atheism.  

Buttttt Since theists have, " unlimited time " plus  some more, " unlimited  time" 
Along  with three more  " unlimited times " and a half, To prove a god exists. 

I gotta be Ag friggen nostic. 
And that comes With the knowledge of knowing god either,
( A )exists  
Orrrrrrrrrrrr 
( B ) does not exist. 

So Until then ,  I just gotta sit here and wait it out. 


All the theists have to do is get one of these god dudes and show him to " us" .
Thats all.  
 
Im starting to think they've given up on this. 
Im also starting to think atheism /  atheists,  have a better chance of proving god doesn't exists.  
its only up and up from there. 

Then We could then move on to more important shit like.
Proving unicorns don't exist. 

No but seriously. 
We shouldn't rush the theists on proving god exists. 
The last thing we want is for them to miss like a clue or something. 
The poor guys. 

Im comfortable giving the theists a couple more thousand years to prove god exists. 

Please Take ya time guys.  
☆☆☆☆☆☆     DO NOT RUSH PROVING GOD EXISTS.    ☆☆☆☆☆☆
Im sure they can in time. 

Hey  I wonder what else theists  belive in SO SO SO much but could NEVER HAVE A CHANCE OF PROVING ?

They started a game and gave us atheists no chance of ummmmm, winning it if you will. 


So ONCE MORE GUYS ( THEISTS ) 
DONT RUSH PROVING ONE OF YA GOD THINGS. 
TAKE YA TIME. 


Fucking Omniwankers.




#393
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
can we agree that things that happen are caused ?

Yes.

can we agree that this universal chain of events leads back to the dawn of time ?

Yes.

what we normally call "the big bang" or "the initial singularity" ?
Yes.

sure, we don't know what happened "before" the initial singularity
but whatever it was

it was "something"

are you contending that it was "NOthing" ?
Yes. And being logical and following what I agreed to above I ask: "what caused the Big Bang?" Since you know, it happened. Here my reason takes over because we have no experiances of before the big bang.

Its cause? Must be whatever made it boom! Seems to me like God could make a big boom like that.
Furthermore, this God must be uncaused and infinite or we very quickly fall into blatant contradictions.

#394
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,029
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Picture the theist headquarters, And in it , a big messy  room full of the everdence they've ( the theists ) have collected  thus farrrrr. 
things like . 
God on a grilled cheese sandwich . And.
And .
IDK.  ,Other stufff. 

There would be scraps of paper EVERYWHERE with just stupid shit sayings on it. 
Like .   (  THE ULTIMATE REALITY.  )  

The rd be. 
Yellow postics covering floor to ceiling.  

A right fucken mess it would be. 



#395
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL

it is based on the theological claim that "god is omnipotent and omniscient and the creator of all things"

spinoza merely pointed out that there is only one solution to this definition


Then Spinosa had a mistunderstanding what they are saying there or a misunderstanding of Being. I am going to go with he had a misunderstanding of being. I.E. He had a crappy philosophy.

maybe you could write a conditional statement for that one
That is not a parody of the IF-Then syllogism. It is a parody of the conclusion that follows from it.
#396
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
how can you be BOTH wet AND dry at the same time ????!!!!!
because it is not in the same way. I.E. what is said of my parts cannot be said of the whole.

The point I am making above is that by your intial syllogism, what you say of the whole you are saying of every part. 
#397
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,029
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@MAV99
Hay Mav. 
You have to Picture a god thing doing the whole,  "before the big bang thing." 
Along with. 
The Making of the billions and billions of stars , galaxies.  
And in thIS same breath , Whilst ya still in ore fathoming. 
Fathomering .
Ya also having the knowledge of knowing that he also doesn't want boys kissing boys. 




#398
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
The existence of God was reasoned to over 2,000 years ago.

You can have the time to catch up if you want.



#399
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
an elephant and a sculpture-of-an-elephant do not have the same functionality

that is why the term "elephant" must be modified in some cases

But if functionality determines WHAT A THING IS, why call the sculpture an elephant?

And does a sculpture of an elephant do things?
#400
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
quantum foam is observable through its effects on particles, and hawking radiation has been observed in experiments, providing empirical evidence for its existence
OK! So quantum foam is the cause of its effects... what causes the quantum foam?
#401
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,775
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Ya also having the knowledge of knowing that he also doesn't want boys kissing boys. 
zoiks
#402
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,775
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
Yes. And being logical and following what I agreed to above I ask: "what caused the Big Bang?" Since you know, it happened. Here my reason takes over because we have no experiances of before the big bang.

Its cause? Must be whatever made it boom! Seems to me like God could make a big boom like that.
Furthermore, this God must be uncaused and infinite or we very quickly fall into blatant contradictions.
ok, so it sounds like you agree with spinoza here

i can't tell if you're being sarcastic
#403
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,029
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
God of the gaps , not gays. 

The only thing we know for certain issssss. 
The Real Gods brute.
Like i mean the actual really real gods,  do like a little a book book thing.  
Its just, 
Well , its commensense.  
Straight up .

The christian god did the bible .
Right brute. ?
Stay with me . 
The bloody other god guy. 
Allen i think his name is. He did a little book to . 

And the jew god .
Well , i don't think he even exists buttttttt, 
If the jews had a god . He would of did one to. 

Imagine how brilliant arguments for atheism could be if only god didn't do the book thing that he did for us. 
Boy the theists got lucky god did a book. 
 

#404
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
ok, so it sounds like you agree with spinoza here
No. I dont agree with him.

Spinosa said the universe is god.

I am saying He is sperate from it as its cause and the universe is the effect.
#405
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,775
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
Then Spinosa had a mistunderstanding what they are saying
which of the five key terms do you believe is misrepresented ?
#406
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,775
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
I am saying He is sperate from it as its cause and the universe is the effect.
how ?

at what point does omnipotent not include all power and all energy ?
#407
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
which of the five key terms do you believe is misrepresented ?
"Exist"

#408
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,775
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
because it is not in the same way. I.E. what is said of my parts cannot be said of the whole.
each part of you is part of the whole you

but each part individually is not the whole you

this is exactly the same case for spinoza's god


spinoza's god is like voltron

all the lions together become voltron

each lion individually is part of voltron but is not the whole voltron
#409
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
at what point does omnipotent not include all power and all energy ?
Ominipotent means he has ability to cause whatever is possible.

This comes from the understanding that an effect is not greater than the cause. Even every effect taken as a whole cannot be greater than the intial cause.
#410
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,775
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
which of the five key terms do you believe is misrepresented ?
"Exist"
how would you change the definition in order for it to be made more accurate ?
#411
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
this is exactly the same case for spinoza's god

No. Spinosa is saying that all effects together equal the cause.

I am saying that no effect, even taken altogether is greater than the intial cause.

#412
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,775
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
Ominipotent means he has ability to cause whatever is possible.
ok, sure

but you believe that this omnipotent god was the very first cause, right ?
#413
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
how would you change the definition in order for it to be made more accurate ?
to exist or to be is not a univocal term.

A thing can exist as something individual and by itself. Like you and me.
A thing can exist only as "in another" like the color blue.
A thing can exist as becoming into existence or going out of existence. We call this change
certain things can only exist in the mind, like numbers or negatives.

With this understanding of what it means to exist (an analogous term) and the understanding of cause and effect, I think Spinosa missed alot and was oversimplifying.

That division above btw comes from Aristotle initially but explained in detail by Thomas Aquinas. They call it the division of being.
#414
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,775
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
No. Spinosa is saying that all effects together equal the cause.

imagine for a second

imagine if you will

try to imagine

that the omnipotent, omniscient creator of all things

decided one day to re-absorb all of creation, EVERYthing

all the monkeys and mice and fish

and planets and galaxies

the whole shebang



(1) would you say that OOC was reduced or diminished in some way after this exercise ?

(2) or would you say that OOC was exactly the same as they were before the first creation event ?
#415
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
but you believe that this omnipotent god was the very first cause, right ?
Yes... well I know He is because I have reasoned to it. Not strictly speaking belief.
#416
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
(1) would you say that OOC was reduced or diminished in some way after this exercise ?

(2) or would you say that OOC was exactly the same as they were before the first creation event ?

1. No I would not.
2. He has to be unchanging, at least intrinsically to Himself. So He would be the same as before.


#417
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
(1) would you say that OOC was reduced or diminished in some way after this exercise ?
If you are trying to get at "how is he not different after the intial cause if it all came from him?"

The answer is that He is infinite. No matter how much or what you take away there is no difference in relation to Him. That is what infinite means.
#418
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,029
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Jesus being killed for speaking about his god daddy in under a week is a pretty strong argument. 
They didn't like imprison him for a year to run tests on him , they just insta killed him. 

You'd think if there  was any slight chance of this bloke jesus being a son of a god and able to perform a mirical or two. 
nowknow he was speaking shit about the already established " religion " in the area at the time. 
The one that he was a member of by the way, ( thats a total different post ) 

You dont kill a dude that can perform  things like. 
Turning a Empty bucket into a , full bucket o fish. 

Ya don't inta kill a guy that has the ability to turn water into wine. 
Ability to heal blind and sick people with a touch of his hand. 

If he can do anythihg like that, you'd simply cut out his little voice  box and put him in like a dungeon,  
NEVER TO BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.  
Easy done. 

Youd work the shit out of him until he dies. 
5 hours a day you'd have him doing ( empty bucket into bucket full of fish )
10 hours a day he'd be turning water into wine 
5 hours a day you'd have him healling folks
3 hours a day doing other profitable stuff , 
And then let him sleep for a hour. 
You'd have him doing this every single day until he dies 

You dont just,    Insta kill him. 

 WATER INTO mutha fucking WINE. 
Who'd want a bloke hanging around that can do stuff like that. 
Nope.
His got to go. 
Nail him up. 
Quickly

He was there for a weekend wasn't he. 

I would of made him KING of the " religion " that was going around at the time. 



#419
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,393
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
How tiring is miracle work?

How many calories does one burn when converting 1 litre of water into 1 litre of wine.

Does the fish come battered or bread-crumbed?

Is there a herb butter option?

None of these questions were answered in his book.

Were the loaves sourdough, wholemeal, basic white sandwich, thick sliced toastie, focaccia or other?

Did he turn fluff into tartare sauce.

No mention.

What was the veggie option?

Falafels?

Stones into falafels maybe.

What about dessert?

Trifle perhaps.

Desert into trifle.

Makes sense.

Obviously where the name came from.

Tomatoes into ketchup.
#420
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,775
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
And does a sculpture of an elephant do things?
it functions as a decoration that evokes the idea of an elephant

in the same way that typing the word "elephant" is not an elephant itself, but evokes the idea of an elephant