Page 6 of 21

Re: Is being an atheist irrational?

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 2:47 pm
by Justhuman
RickD answered:
1) if God created the universe, He had to be outside of what He created.

2) God does not have physical "size".

3) since God cannot logically be a part of something He creates, he's outside the universe, and doesn't need to outrun the Big Bang.
1) Ok. That's logical, to be outside of something one creates, especially during a Big Bang. No problem with that. But how far away would he have been to be at a safe distance? That is of course an unsolvable question, but a practical one it is.
2) More of a problem, because how/why do you know that God has no physical size?
3) Logic, logic... Though I'm fond of logic, 'my' atheistic logic is often ignored here :(
But I can live with God being outside the universe.

However, do you realize how big the universe is, and how tiny the Earth whithin that universe?

As I earlier explained why I am an atheist, it is (also) because I think the Universe is too big for (a) God. Here is more on my why:
If you were to shrink the current approximal size of the universe (about 100 billion lightyears) down to the size of the Earth itself, then the size of the Earth (within that shrunken universe) would be about 30 times the size of a proton.

Now can you imagine God in our real universe (but outside), focusing his attention to that more than more than tiny speck of planet Earth, listening 24/7 to 7 billion microscopic souls?

And then atheists are called irrational.

Re: Is being an atheist irrational?

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:58 pm
by Justhuman
At Kurieuo:
I've had to read your extensive answer several times (epiphenominalism?), and I think it does represent my view pretty well.
To determine what free will truely is becomes more difficult. I have to think about that for a while. Though if one consistantly follows the epiphenominalism, there is no free will, only action and reaction. If I understand it right. Food for the mind!

It's too late now to continue, have to come back later...

Re: Is being an atheist irrational?

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 4:01 pm
by patrick
I don't think of atheism as irrational, but all the views I've heard for it that I found coherent I also found uncompelling. For instance, I talked to someone who believed there was good reason to think that science is only incidentally practical, and ultimately we're simply imposing our ideas of coherence onto reality, so such would not exist beyond our minds. I didn't see any flaw in her arguments at the time, but I also felt it to be an excessively skeptical leap to take -- a much bigger leap than, say, the problem of evil for Christianity, for instance.

Re: Is being an atheist irrational?

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 4:33 pm
by RickD
RickD wrote:
1) if God created the universe, He had to be outside of what He created.

2) God does not have physical "size".

3) since God cannot logically be a part of something He creates, he's outside the universe, and doesn't need to outrun the Big Bang.

Justhuman wrote:
1) Ok. That's logical, to be outside of something one creates, especially during a Big Bang. No problem with that. But how far away would he have been to be at a safe distance? That is of course an unsolvable question, but a practical one it is.
2) More of a problem, because how/why do you know that God has no physical size?
3) Logic, logic... Though I'm fond of logic, 'my' atheistic logic is often ignored here :(
But I can live with God being outside the universe.
1) how far away? Again, God is not a physical being. Physical things like size, distance, etc., need not apply to God.

2) God has no physical size because he is Spirit. Just think logically. If the universe is all existing matter( physical substance), and God "existed" before the universe, then He can't be matter.

3) when I say God is outside the universe, I'm not saying he's in a physical place, outside the universe. I'm saying He's not part of the universe, because He cannot be part of something He created.

Re: Is being an atheist irrational?

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 5:37 pm
by abelcainsbrother
Justhuman wrote:I already thought I shouldn't encourage Abelcainsbrother, but he was avoiding my question.
His answer that I first should become a true Christian was a non-answer. Why does he think I cannot understand/grasp what he believes? Is that solely reserved for do-believers?
How about if I would say "First become an atheist before you can fully understand the atheistic truth."?
As if some non-atheist cannot understand the arheistic viewpoint. That would be a pretty arrogant presumption.
Of course I cannot feel what he feels, but that is something entirely different.

It is not a non-answer you just choose to dismiss it and so do not have the evidence and proof you need to know God is real.It would be the proof you need to know God is real that you don't have right now. I could choose to be an atheist like you but you cannot choose to be a Christian like me until you are saved.You cannot just start being a Christian on your own,it does not work like that,because salvation is not human effort like with atheism,other religions,etc.Other than choosing to believe in Jesus and asking him to save you is the only human effort required,God does everything else,because Jesus paid for our salvation in full.It is God that does the changing but you're not willing to let him and so you have no evidence you are right to be an atheist,yet still choose to be one and this is a big difference you overlook.

Re: Is being an atheist irrational?

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 6:34 pm
by abelcainsbrother
Justhuman wrote:RickD answered:
1) if God created the universe, He had to be outside of what He created.

2) God does not have physical "size".

3) since God cannot logically be a part of something He creates, he's outside the universe, and doesn't need to outrun the Big Bang.
1) Ok. That's logical, to be outside of something one creates, especially during a Big Bang. No problem with that. But how far away would he have been to be at a safe distance? That is of course an unsolvable question, but a practical one it is.
2) More of a problem, because how/why do you know that God has no physical size?
3) Logic, logic... Though I'm fond of logic, 'my' atheistic logic is often ignored here :(
But I can live with God being outside the universe.

However, do you realize how big the universe is, and how tiny the Earth whithin that universe?

As I earlier explained why I am an atheist, it is (also) because I think the Universe is too big for (a) God. Here is more on my why:
If you were to shrink the current approximal size of the universe (about 100 billion lightyears) down to the size of the Earth itself, then the size of the Earth (within that shrunken universe) would be about 30 times the size of a proton.

Now can you imagine God in our real universe (but outside), focusing his attention to that more than more than tiny speck of planet Earth, listening 24/7 to 7 billion microscopic souls?

And then atheists are called irrational.
The Word. For you.
https://youtu.be/foWfTX0_uHA

Re: Is being an atheist irrational?

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 8:32 pm
by Kurieuo
RickD wrote:
justhuman wrote:
RickD wrote:1) if God created the universe, He had to be outside of what He created.

2) God does not have physical "size".

3) since God cannot logically be a part of something He creates, he's outside the universe, and doesn't need to outrun the Big Bang.
1) Ok. That's logical, to be outside of something one creates, especially during a Big Bang. No problem with that. But how far away would he have been to be at a safe distance? That is of course an unsolvable question, but a practical one it is.
2) More of a problem, because how/why do you know that God has no physical size?
3) Logic, logic... Though I'm fond of logic, 'my' atheistic logic is often ignored here :(
But I can live with God being outside the universe.
1) how far away? Again, God is not a physical being. Physical things like size, distance, etc., need not apply to God.

2) God has no physical size because he is Spirit. Just think logically. If the universe is all existing matter( physical substance), and God "existed" before the universe, then He can't be matter.

3) when I say God is outside the universe, I'm not saying he's in a physical place, outside the universe. I'm saying He's not part of the universe, because He cannot be part of something He created.
JH,

Many think of God in wrong terms, materialistic terms, even calling "God" a spirit and visualising up some ethereal ghostly form or essence that is God. You know Casper the ghost, or spirits you see in movies or the like, such are represented as materialistic beings. Made of some substance, and perhaps we can even see them or capture such on video. Yet, immaterial, means just that -- not material. The one thing God doesn't fundamentally possess is material form.

Rather God is said to be immaterial, and while I don't wish the delve into the logic of why, just accept that as a given within orthodox Christian thought. If we take such literally, then there is no real divine "substance", there is no "size" God is, there is no "distance" God has from us or our created universe (rather God omnipresent and present everywhere in virtue of His immaterial nature).

Regarding creation, the most we can say is that such was a potentiality contingent upon God. God acts to bring about such a potentiality, and such became an actuality. Many philosophically-minded Christians who explore philosophical questions to do with the nature of reality, tend to lean towards and/or embrace Idealism. For example, if you have the time, while these series of YouTube videos are by a Christian I'm sure you'll no doubt find them very interesting: The Quantum God

Re: Is being an atheist irrational?

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 8:37 pm
by Kurieuo
Justhuman wrote:At Kurieuo:
I've had to read your extensive answer several times (epiphenominalism?), and I think it does represent my view pretty well.
To determine what free will truely is becomes more difficult. I have to think about that for a while. Though if one consistantly follows the epiphenominalism, there is no free will, only action and reaction. If I understand it right. Food for the mind!

It's too late now to continue, have to come back later...
To return to this topic of free will, in developing your own positions (which I expect you're trying to do after your own independent evaluation of the thoughts and arguments out there), I'd encourage you to include as part of your research this four-series YouTube playlist: The Case For Free Will

Re: Is being an atheist irrational?

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 6:51 pm
by thatkidakayoungguy
Kurieuo wrote: JH,

Many think of God in wrong terms, materialistic terms, even calling "God" a spirit and visualising up some ethereal ghostly form or essence that is God. You know Casper the ghost, or spirits you see in movies or the like, such are represented as materialistic beings. Made of some substance, and perhaps we can even see them or capture such on video. Yet, immaterial, means just that -- not material. The one thing God doesn't fundamentally possess is material form.

Rather God is said to be immaterial, and while I don't wish the delve into the logic of why, just accept that as a given within orthodox Christian thought. If we take such literally, then there is no real divine "substance", there is no "size" God is, there is no "distance" God has from us or our created universe (rather God omnipresent and present everywhere in virtue of His immaterial nature).

Regarding creation, the most we can say is that such was a potentiality contingent upon God. God acts to bring about such a potentiality, and such became an actuality. Many philosophically-minded Christians who explore philosophical questions to do with the nature of reality, tend to lean towards and/or embrace Idealism. For example, if you have the time, while these series of YouTube videos are by a Christian I'm sure you'll no doubt find them very interesting: The Quantum God
What exactly is immaterial? Pure energy? Something else?

Re: Is being an atheist irrational?

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 7:02 pm
by Kurieuo
Lacking any substance. Energy is material. Ethereal is material (extremely delicate and light in a way that seems not to be of this world). Bodily is material (God has no body).

Consider "love" it has no physical or material substance, yet we believe such exists. "Morality" has no material nature. "Goodness", "Justice", "Fairness", perhaps even colour is immaterial since a subject is wired to perceive colour based upon wavelength. God has no bodily substance, has no parts, is immaterial, is pure existence, pure will, pure consciousness if you will.

If you want a more detailed understanding of God's nature, then I'd recommend reading Jac's often recommended and liked short book on Divine Simplicity: Making Divine Simplicity Simple: Rediscovering Who and What God Is

Re: Is being an atheist irrational?

Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:25 am
by Justhuman
@RickD and Kurieuo
Many think of God in wrong terms, materialistic terms, even calling "God" a spirit and visualising up some ethereal ghostly form or essence that is God. You know Casper the ghost, or spirits you see in movies or the like, such are represented as materialistic beings. Made of some substance, and perhaps we can even see them or capture such on video. Yet, immaterial, means just that -- not material. The one thing God doesn't fundamentally possess is material form.

Rather God is said to be immaterial, and while I don't wish the delve into the logic of why, just accept that as a given within orthodox Christian thought. If we take such literally, then there is no real divine "substance", there is no "size" God is, there is no "distance" God has from us or our created universe (rather God omnipresent and present everywhere in virtue of His immaterial nature).

Regarding creation, the most we can say is that such was a potentiality contingent upon God. God acts to bring about such a potentiality, and such became an actuality. Many philosophically-minded Christians who explore philosophical questions to do with the nature of reality, tend to lean towards and/or embrace Idealism. For example, if you have the time, while these series of YouTube videos are by a Christian I'm sure you'll no doubt find them very interesting: The Quantum God
While I have no problem to accept it "as a givven within orthodox Christian thought", I can't stop wondering how one can accept it as a 'fact', while there is no evidence or proof. Any evidence is at the most circumstantial, and to accept it as a fact is a matter of believing. But that rules out any other possibilities. Science might go the other way.



I still have to view the Youtube videos you suggested Kurieuo (btw what does Kurieuo mean?), haven't found the time for that yet. So I'll (mostly) refrain from commenting further untill I've seen them.

Re: Is being an atheist irrational?

Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2017 5:14 am
by Kurieuo
Justhuman wrote:@RickD and Kurieuo
Many think of God in wrong terms, materialistic terms, even calling "God" a spirit and visualising up some ethereal ghostly form or essence that is God. You know Casper the ghost, or spirits you see in movies or the like, such are represented as materialistic beings. Made of some substance, and perhaps we can even see them or capture such on video. Yet, immaterial, means just that -- not material. The one thing God doesn't fundamentally possess is material form.

Rather God is said to be immaterial, and while I don't wish the delve into the logic of why, just accept that as a given within orthodox Christian thought. If we take such literally, then there is no real divine "substance", there is no "size" God is, there is no "distance" God has from us or our created universe (rather God omnipresent and present everywhere in virtue of His immaterial nature).

Regarding creation, the most we can say is that such was a potentiality contingent upon God. God acts to bring about such a potentiality, and such became an actuality. Many philosophically-minded Christians who explore philosophical questions to do with the nature of reality, tend to lean towards and/or embrace Idealism. For example, if you have the time, while these series of YouTube videos are by a Christian I'm sure you'll no doubt find them very interesting: The Quantum God
While I have no problem to accept it "as a givven within orthodox Christian thought", I can't stop wondering how one can accept it as a 'fact', while there is no evidence or proof. Any evidence is at the most circumstantial, and to accept it as a fact is a matter of believing. But that rules out any other possibilities. Science might go the other way.
Have you considered what "Science" exactly is, that is, the ontological reality it presupposes? Science is an exercise which starts with us, the subject, and works to understand the world that we find ourselves in. Such is quite neutral to both Theism and Atheism.

Yet, many take it up a notch and project an aura of superiority to a Materialist view of reality, the ontology of such is all that has ever existed and all that ever will exist. But, what justification is given for such? But, it is swallowed by many as in fact true, particularly those who haven't thought much about philosophical questions to do with reality, philosophy of science even (the whole of which is indeed built upon certain philosophical foundations). And now, in theology, one isn't even allowed to believe God exists beyond materialistic boundaries. Really? y=;

Such who really turn it up a notch have convinced many not to question using an authoritarian materialistic approach. One isn't allowed to question outside the walls of materialism, to ask what foundations such rests upon. No, the material world is all there is, and all there will be, despite questions that arise from science itself and reasoning to the contrary. We must just accept that the confines of the four walls we find ourselves within are all that exist, and they just exist in/off themselves, nothing more, nothing less. It is frowned upon to even consider whether there is something holding up those four walls, to consider what lays outside those walls, and even whether the nature of those walls might be more than meets the eye. If someone dares to question the reality of such, or merely thinks about what might lay on the outside, wonders how these walls came to be, or points out some observations within that appear to be more than materialism allows, such people deserve nothing less than to be castigated and ridiculed as irrational fools.

Yet, I ask you, what is wrong with asking questions? Must we accept as brute fact that the confines of the world we find ourselves within are all that exist? Isn't asking why they exist, how they exist just as important as understanding the things that exist within such confines? Perhaps even, as some like myself believe, more important?

You see, if you're following what I'm trying to say, the Materialist's worldview is actually no more justified than the non-Materialist's. Rather one philosophy has simply boasted itself superior, convinced a great many people through beating its chest, puffing itself up and declaring itself the winner, that it is indeed the only view of the world anyone can rationally take. But, I question whether it really can be the winner by default, simply because we find ourselves within a physical world (with immaterial oddities like "love", "consciousness", "morality", strangeness at the quantum level to do with observation [measuring] not being completely passive to reality and much more).

So then, you might question the nature of an immaterial world, but to put a pin into the bubble of materialism, I reject that such is the winner by default. And science itself, can actually strangely point us to a reality beyond the four walls of materialism, the bubble Materialists created is starting to burst (if not has already -- many just haven't seen the writing on the wall). Hence, we have more non-materialistic Atheistic philosophers rising like Thomas Nagel (who is one I respect as a rational Atheist) finding themselves castigated and intellectually punished for dissenting from Materialism. Then there are others, who more often find themselves turning to Agnosticism or some sort of unknown Theism/Deism because they can't bring themselves to believe in any "God" found across mainstream religions.

In any case, I'd highly recommend those videos. You mightn't agree with all points, I expect you won't, but they ought to certainly make you think more deeply about the nature of reality.
Justhuman wrote:I still have to view the Youtube videos you suggested Kurieuo (btw what does Kurieuo mean?), haven't found the time for that yet. So I'll (mostly) refrain from commenting further untill I've seen them.
I began some 20 years ago debating online, but was back then also an avid gamer. So desired an alias that represented both worlds best, and thought the meaning of Kurieuo was cool, and was rarely taken online. It means (no vanity attached whatsoever. ;)):

Re: Is being an atheist irrational?

Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2017 11:13 am
by Justhuman
Well Kurieuo, you certainly know to write a lenghty text.

There's nothing wrong with asking questions. Also questions outside the box. Anyone who denies to explore or accept the knowledge outside that box is an ignorant foo... man/woman. But, of course anyone is entitled to believe what, and up to which level, they want.

And yes, since there is no final evidence for either the theistic or atheistic universe, either might become true. I'll happily submit to a created universe if that's what it is. But God? If 'God' created this universe, up to which point am I obliged to follow Him? To serve Him? What can I, a puny insignificant just human being, offer God that comes even close to what a universeable-creatable God could need?
And... It still leaves unanswered the question of the origin of the creator(s?). To state that our universe is created, is more or less to admit that the creators universe might also be created, etc...

I've viewed "The Quantum God" video, and probably have to view it a few times more...

Quantum physics, space/time, string theory, quantum entanglement, multiverse (the latter three are not mentioned in the video), and such are (way) beyond the understanding of the average man/woman, including me. Though I think I more-or-less grasp the basic concept of those subjects, it will be hard for me to 'conclude' something with insufficient knowledge.

For example, to conclude that the universe can or cannot spontaneously emerge from nothing is impossible to prove because we do not know, nor understand, the conditions at the beginning. If ever we will.
To flee to the creator created universe is therefore too easy. I think that any conclusion that our (informational) universe must and can only be created by an external intelligent 'power' is based on incomplete knowledge.
As so often atheistic arguments have theistic counter arguments that have atheistic counter arguments etc... IT's a cat-and-mouse play.

So, in the end, we just don't KNOW yet. To believe something doesn't make it the truth, however convinced one is.

Thus far I'm still a convinced atheist. But then I have to view the other videos you pointed me too.

Re: Is being an atheist irrational?

Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2017 12:16 pm
by thatkidakayoungguy
Kurieuo wrote:Lacking any substance. Energy is material. Ethereal is material (extremely delicate and light in a way that seems not to be of this world). Bodily is material (God has no body).

Consider "love" it has no physical or material substance, yet we believe such exists. "Morality" has no material nature. "Goodness", "Justice", "Fairness", perhaps even colour is immaterial since a subject is wired to perceive colour based upon wavelength. God has no bodily substance, has no parts, is immaterial, is pure existence, pure will, pure consciousness if you will.

If you want a more detailed understanding of God's nature, then I'd recommend reading Jac's often recommended and liked short book on Divine Simplicity: Making Divine Simplicity Simple: Rediscovering Who and What God Is
It's hard for me to understand that, probably since we're always surrounded by material things, but I accept it.

Re: Is being an atheist irrational?

Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 2:32 am
by Justhuman
As Kurieuo wrote:
Consider "love" it has no physical or material substance, yet we believe such exists. "Morality" has no material nature. "Goodness", "Justice", "Fairness", perhaps even colour is immaterial since a subject is wired to perceive colour based upon wavelength. God has no bodily substance, has no parts, is immaterial, is pure existence, pure will, pure consciousness if you will.
Than one has to accept that immaterial concepts such as 'love' (or 'thoughts' in general) are more than just physical biological chemical processes. Like our spirit or soul. Do they exist? Or is it a fabrication of what we have been taught? Like a flat Earth. People believed that (some still do), because they were taught that is the reality. And since there was no evidence or logical counter conclusion, there was no reason to believe otherwise, until...

Suppose I am right in my atheistic view, I still feel love, wonder, awe, enjoy the beauty of nature, etc... It's all in the brain. I'm still human. The physical world/universe remains the same.

To come back to the subject of this post:
RickD wrote:
The traditional definition of atheism is, "the belief that there is no God".

Another definition more commonly used, is "the lack of belief in God/gods".

The first is irrational.

The second, not necessarily irrational.
I still don't see why my unbelief in God is considered irrational.

Am I irrational anyway one looks at it or s it dependent upon the 'point of view'.