I'm looking for an atheist interested in discussing which faith is more reasonable, are you one?

Question

A belief in God, or a belief in no God? Express whether you like the idea of discussing one aspect, or multiple aspects. I personally like the idea of one, such as something like, "I believe fruit is evidence of order in creation." Instead of, "I believe in God." Or, "I believe in no God." I'd also like to discuss the >implications< of whether my argument, or your argument is more reasonable. Such as if I were be able to reason over you that, "Evidence of order through fruit, is evidence of a creator." This would >imply< there is evidence of God, therefore, it would be reasonable for you to give at least one "similiar in persuasive reason" supporting the existence of no God. This is just an example that holds zero meaning, to gain a clear understanding of what I mean when I say "discuss the implications."

If you are willing to discuss multiple aspects, then you must be willing to refer back to me and respond to everything I say, as I will also do, for a longer period of time.

Also, to say that, "I don't have a belief in no God," just wouldn't make sense. Otherwise you wouldn't believe God doesn't exist. From my experience, atheists like to beat around the bush, change contexts, use semantics, beg the question, and use circular reasoning. I'm not saying every atheist does it, or that any one atheist does it all of the time, but please, let's be rational.

Also, MOST IMPORTANTLY, do NOT claim something you KNOW OR BELIEVE, without backing it up with REASONS TO SUPPORT the claim.
If you don't use REASON OR SUPPORT, to back up your claim, we can all logically assume the claim is UNREASONABLE. I'm not yelling, I'm just emphasizing, and stressing clarity. In my experience, claiming something without backing it up, happens more frequently then anything. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just trying to solve future issues before they happen. I'm just trying to ask everyone to be rational.

Anyways, as you all know I'll be responding to everyone so refer back.

Megatron: I claim to have evidence/reason/support in my belief that God exists. So let's talk...

BGrimey: Hello, nice to see you again.

Your problem lies in one assumption:

You said, "P4 - Gods mind needs a creator"

Can you prove that God needed a creator? If so let me know, I'm listening.

Also, even if you COULD reasonably support this as being unreasonable, (I'll admit it is anyways, I'll help you out.)
...you'd have to reasonably explain how the origin of the universe was created. I'm listening.

SuperAtheist: You said, "...natural process..."

When you say natural, do you mean random? Natural selection? Natural like how a ball rolls down a hill? Define natural, so that I may continue analyzing your argument.

Jolly: You said, "There isn't much to discuss unless you have creditable evidence that there is a god. "Sounding reasonable" is a good thing but that doesn't imply that it is correct, verifiable or true."

Your problem lies in your assumption that evidence = proof. Like I've explained to you a million times before.

You said, "Sounding reasonable" is a good thing but that doesn't imply that it is correct, verifiable or true."

Very observant. Why are you putting quotations under sounding reasonable?
Sounding reasonable is a good thing? Yes, a good thing, among other things such as, "it actually being reasonable"...also, sounding reasonable and being reasonable are slightly different, and this is not me using semantics. Something can sound reasonable, yet not be reasonable at the same time. Such as it would sound reasonable for me to eat vegetables. This sounds reasonable in and of itself, yet what if I'm allergic to them? ALSO....

Jolly Roger: Staying on track with your claim that:

You said, "Sounding reasonable" is a good thing but that doesn't imply that it is correct, verifiable or true."

This statement in and of itself, is true. However, the problem is that you assume that since it is, it implies something, anything. In fact I've never claimed that something has to be verifiable in order for something to be reasonable. We can only verify things we know, we are not required to VERIFY things we don't know and that we only believe. I'd have though you'd realized this by now.

BGrimey: You've simply jumped your assumption onto something else. Here's why:

You said, "- then by your own reasoning God himself would need a creator"

Your assumption that in order for God to have a mind, he would have to be created. The problem is you leave out the possibility that he always existed WITH a mind. Please tell me you see this assumption you have is a problem for you, otherwise explain.

BGrimey: You're right, I should have asked you to give me a reasonable explanation concerning how the universe has always been.

You're reason:

"...because time does not superceed the universe."

Please elaborate further, on why you believe this is a reasonable reason for explaining how the origin of the universe has always been, so that I may better understand what your implying. Thanks.

Wait.......you claim to believe the universe is infinite? Hasn't this already been proven that it isn't?

BGrimey, you DID assume: Again here's why:

You stated that since:

>>P4 - Gods mind needs a creator<<

Your conclusion because of your assumption here:

Conclusion - The argument from design is complete rubbish.

How do you not see that it is an assumption on your part, that God would NEED to be created, because God's mind would NEED to be created.

Again, you're completely DISMISSING the POSSIBILITY that God has always been, and God's mind, has always been.

I cannot make this any clearer.

BGrimey: I also just picked up on something:

I made an error that helped your argument: I told you this:

...you'd have to reasonably explain how the origin of the universe was created.

Which is untrue as you pointed out to me, however, you then said, "the question now becomes has the universe always existed?" This is NOT what the question then becomes. You ALSO assume the impossibility that the question "couldn't become anything other than, 'has the universe always existed,' " BTW, how do you know what the question becomes, did I ask it? No. This is what the question ACTUALLY becomes......." you'd have to reasonably explain how the origin of the universe...came about..." This question relieves itself of the problem of it having to be created. Therefore can you reasonably explain this?

Okay BGrimey, if you insist that yet, you STILL did not make this assumption, please then explain away this claim you made:

YOU SAID: God's mind >>NEEDS<< a creator

Your conclusion because of this "non-assumption" if you insist...

You claim THEN: "The argument from design >>is<< complete rubbish."

Explain how you claim to KNOW the argument from design is complete rubbish?

BGrimey: You asked, "Are you talking about the Big Bang Theory?"

No I'm not referring to the Big Bang, but you didn't know that the universe is proven not to be infinite? At least I think for sure it's proven. Just google it later when you're bored. I'm not a cosmologist but I've researched it.

BTW, before I continue, what does P1, P2, P3 mean? What does the P stand for? Possibility? Or Proof based on my reasoning? Or, Points, I don't know.

Yes I said that Gods mind "Needs" a creator by "Your" reasoning!

Okay.........then you've assumed my reasoning. Because never have I reasoned with myself that God's mind would ever have to be created.

BGrimey: Is it logical to assume the premises for my reasoning? Since of course, one of your premises is flawed: P4.?

Now I'm going to back up, and address the answer from where I left off....

BGrimey: You said, "Now if you want to argue that God has always existed outside of space and time then state you`re argument as such."

You seem to think you know what I want now. No I do not want to argue this. Why? Because even if I could argue this reasonable, it wouldn't imply anything. Since I'd still have to reasonably support my belief in the actual existence of God.

Let me use this analogy with you. By your reasoning, it would make sense that we must give reason that rainbow colored unicorn have white teeth. Even if I can give you reasonable belief that rainbow colored unicorn have white teeth, that still doesn't imply reason to believe in a rainbow colored unicorn. Therefore the argument would become meaningless. Point: Just because we can give reason to something's characteristics, doesn't mean it gives reason to believe in that something, as you probably unknowningly reason against.

Somehow I think you mistake "walking in circles" for "getting down to the root of the issue in clarity"

I disagree that we are walking in circles. Since you must support what you belief, or what you know, I'll be waiting for an explanation. Also, if you "don't get something" don't simply state this and not say what it is you don't actually get. So let's just back up, and work our way to the root of the problems/misconceptions/misunderstandings/things that aren't clear/assumptions...etc...

Answer 1

Hello?!!!

Athiesm isn't a "faith"..... You're off to a bad start.

Until any good christian person can prove to me that there is a gigantic god somewhere in the religious sense.....I don't want to have a discussion.

It is ALL fairytales, myth, legend and stories until that happens.

Answer 2

Evidence through order of fruit is evidence of a creator?
Is this the classic theological argument from design? If so, this one is easily refutable.

P1. Things that are functionally complex need a creator
P2 - That creator must be at least or more complex that why it has created
P3 - Gods mind is functionally complex. In other words he is an intelligent being. His creations are planned, of order, and intricately designed.
P4 - Gods mind needs a creator
Conclusion - The argument from design is complete rubbish.

We already had a pretty good debate. How have you debates been going thus far? Learn anything?

Edit: No, I cannot "Prove" that Gods mind needs a creator. What I`m refuting is the supposed logic in your reasoning. If the order of fruit is evidence or need of a creator because of it`s complexity - then by your own reasoning God himself would need a creator because he is functionally complex.

I commed you for being willing to debate your faith. Obviously I think that you are surely mistaken, but at least you`re willing to subject you faith to logical scrutiny. That`s great, and to be commended.

Q. you'd have to reasonably explain how the origin of the universe was created.

A. Created when talking about the universe is an ambigous and meaningless term. The Univerese is everything that is. The question then becomes well has the Universe always existed. But yet again this is a meaningless question, because time does not superceed the universe. Time is apart of the Universe. There is no Universal clock ticking throughout the entire universe as einsteine proved through his theory of relativity that time itself is relative.

Lets Debate - Again you`re totally missing the point.
You said: Your assumption that in order for God to have a mind, he would have to be created..

NOOOOO! I`am not assuming anything. You`re assuming that since fruit and organisms or whatever is complex it needs to be created. But you`re own reasoning is self refuting - because then God himself would need a created. You`re argument is flawed is that difficult to comprhend?

Lets debate - "...because time does not superceed the universe."

Simple answer - The Universe is "Everything that is." Therefore time itself is part of the Universe. The Universe cannot have an origin - that is a meaninless question, because again the Universe is "Everything" that is. Asking well where did it come from is to imply that it came from somewhere some place and at some time.
But again space and time is apart of the Univerese so that is a meaningless question.

Let`s Debate - The Universe has been shown to not be infinite? Are you talking about the Big Bang Theory?

Lets Debat - For the last time! I`am not assuming anything. Maybe God has always existed, maybe he does not need a creator? Why I`am claiming here is that saying that God necessarily exists because things in the Univerese are functionally complex is nonsense. Because by "That Reasoning" then God himself would need a creator.

Now if you want to argue that God has always existed outside of space and time then state you`re argument as such. The argument from design and claiming that God has always existed are different arguments that should be stated as such.
If you want to argue this point then fine, state it. These are seperate arguements, you`re mixing postulates.

Let`s Debate - I lost you on the last one. First you say that the question does not necessarily become has the universed always existed then you say that - that is what the question ACTUALLY becomes?

I don`t understand the question and Yes I was wrong to assume that is what the question necessarily becomes. I admit I put words in your mouth. But what is the question?

Lets debate - We are walking in circles. Yes I said that Gods mind "Needs" a creator by "Your" reasoning! By the argument from designs "Reasoning" God himself would need a creator. The argument from design is complete rubbish because it goes into an infinite regress.

Lets Debate - This is what I have to say about The Big Bang theory and cosmoligist "Claim" that the universe had a beginning. Click on the link

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsGJ7Wa66yI0OClposaGborty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071020072542AAUNtx3

Lets Debate - Again we are walking in circles. I would be happy to discuss this with you over the phone. Check your email.

Let`s Debate - You do not play but the "Rules" of reason. This is why we cannot have a meaninful debate. We must agree on the "Rules" that govern logic before we can have a debate.

Answer 3

I reason that the belief in a single male creation deity goes against nature-which can be experienced. Single males do not create or nurture life. (Actually, in nature, single anythings do not create life, whether it's female or male...except single cell organisms but even those are considered female)
I think it's very unreasonable for polar opposite attributes (good vs evil, love vs hate) to come from the same being. In the order of things,when a dictator is present, at some point, there are negative repercussions.
The Buy-bull is inaccurate and open to interpretation so it's not very trustworthy.

Answer 4

There isn't much to discuss unless you have creditable evidence that there is a god. "Sounding reasonable" is a good thing but that doesn't imply that it is correct, verifiable or true. Take a look at most creationist sites and books, they sound reasonable but should be classified as falsehood.

It's a bit unreasonable to require a response for everything you say, and I probably will never refer to you(I don't think you said what you meant). But we can give it a shot for awhile and see how it works out.

Answer 5

I have attempted to have a discussion like this but all I got back was - It says so in the bible so it has to be true. No discussion of the validity of the bible. Just - it exists so there fore it is the truth.

For my money, the only reasonable or intelligent religion is semi-orthodox judism. They had a way of life that had been handed down by - someone - over centuries. Much of it had been taken from other cultures, but it kept them alive and healthy when those around them were dieing. Much of it doesn't really apply to this day and age but some of it is still valid.

Answer 6

Been there; done that; and it's bloody BORING. There's seldom agreement on even the most basic principles.

Just to stick with your fruit: we agree that fruits and loads of other things are evidence of order. Do you accept that there is a natural process that causes increase in order of the degree we see in fruit? I suspect not. So now we have to get you to understand and then accept evolution.

What are the chances of that? Do you know anything about how it works?

CD

Answer 7

Just bring me evidence, we'll talk then.

Without evidence, you can't debate about god, anymore than you can debate about Mickey mouse.