Atheism is not Logical

[Jacob10]

No, presently scientists are stating that there are only 4 forces in nature.

We can discount gravity because that theory force is still stuck in flower mathematical equations that only came about because secular scientists falsely assumed that the 2 off magnetic forces in nature are the same and they are not so they had to invent something.

As far as the strong and weak nuclear forces are concerned.Secular scientist are just getting these forces confused with magnetic forces at the micro level.

I don't challenge your religious beliefs; they are yours to cherish. But your understanding of science is somewhat lacking, and it is not disguised or covered up with your bluster about how "secular scientists" don't know what they're talking about. Within their subject area, these scientists do know what they're talking about, and you do not.

Trump creates truth by constant repetition, even in the face of contrary evidence. Let's not start doing the same here. It's not "alt-truth", it's lies and misunderstandings. Being 'entitled to your opinion' does not include an entitlement for your opinion to be right/correct/true.

Which bit of my understanding of science is lacking? You make statements that you can’t substantiate.

[Jacob10]

Secular scientists don’t know what they are talking about, they have even missed the fact that the 2 fundamental magnetic forces in nature are different.

[Pattern-chaser]

Which bit of my understanding of science is lacking? You make statements that you can’t substantiate.

• You write of "absolute" forces when there are just forces.
• You assert two 'natural' forces when there are at least four.
• [Analogy] - You class a wind blowing North and a wind blowing South as 2 different things; they are not: their direction is opposite.
• You deny the existence of any other force than electromagnetism.

I do not assert that science is infallible, it is what it is. But it has proven useful, many times, and shown valuable predictive power. This science is defined and described well, in books and webpages, and in schools. Your understanding of this science is clearly limited.

[3017Metaphysician]

Lucky!

Lucky, please don't take this the wrong way, but in part, your response might serve to support the OP premise that something beyond logic is causing (in this instance) you to believe what you believe. I hope I'm wrong, but based upon your emotive response, I can certainly understand the sensitive nature of this topic. Emotions are not a bad thing.

Be that as it may, if you wish to continue discourse, let's parse some of the flaws in your reasoning. I'll try to succinctly enumerate them with concise detail so as to help with grasping the basics:

1. You initially argued for deduction to support your belief system. Now you seem to be back-peddling. Are you now suggesting that agnosticism is somehow a better belief system for all human beings?

2. In Christianity, Jesus existed in a history book. The a-theist for some emotional reason, seems to deny that. Why?

3. In metaphysics (the nature of reality; first principles of Being, change, time, consciousness, the relationship between mind/inert matter, causation, etc.), we learn that reality cannot be 'logically' proven to exist (due primarily to unresolved paradox in cause and effect relationships over things-in-themselves) both scientifically or philosophically.

4. Humans, including you, find themselves in an existential condition of only knowing observed existence over essence. Despite simple propagation of the species and genetically coded emergence, one doesn't really know how or why the world exists the way it does, much less how or why you yourself got here (conscious existence). Unless of course you can make all things ex nihilo.

Practically speaking, by evolutionary standards, while you may not agree that there are many things about conscious existence and the observable word that transcend human reason or understanding (music, mathematics, the color red, love, intentionality, the will, and so forth), you find yourself not knowing even your own self; your own essence (the design and construction of you). Darwinism can't explain it, nor does it explain 'the first one'.

Some questions for Lucky to consider: If you don't know your own self, how does one make a judgement about the essence of someone or some-thing else? Maybe said another way, humans don't know the nature of their own existence (which is defined as their essence), so how do they make judgements about the concept of a God? What kind of logic can help us understand the nature of our own anthropic conditions? Could there be a better or more appropriate concept that captures the genesis of all life forms? And perhaps more importantly, does the a-theist deny the metaphysics of human purpose and meaning too (if purpose and meaning are both irrelevant, why are you responding to this thread)?

Emotions?

There isn't a coherent argument in this post. Which brings up a deeper issue, many theists can't follow logic, so they aren't in a position to judge whether or not atheism is logical (of course it is).

Alta!

Please don't take this the wrong way, but your response seems more emotional than logical, no? Are you angry about some-thing?

Pure Passive aggressive, theism. Love it!

Sure! the OP speaks to something transcendent of pure reason as to the actual cause of an a-theist belief system. (You know, kind of like the thing-in-itself that caused Kant to consider writing the CPR... .) Which part are you loving, the emotion or the logic?

[Jacob10]

Which bit of my understanding of science is lacking? You make statements that you can’t substantiate.

• You write of "absolute" forces when there are just forces.
• You assert two 'natural' forces when there are at least four.
• [Analogy] - You class a wind blowing North and a wind blowing South as 2 different things; they are not: their direction is opposite.
• You deny the existence of any other force than electromagnetism.

I do not assert that science is infallible, it is what it is. But it has proven useful, many times, and shown valuable predictive power. This science is defined and described well, in books and webpages, and in schools. Your understanding of this science is clearly limited.

1.The 2 magnetism forces are absolute forces and they are different.
2.There are only 2 absolute forces which are common to both the macro and micro and they are the 2 magnetism forces.
3.The 2 magnetism forces are different forces.
4.You are right,I do dispute the nuclear weak and strong forces.They are mistaken for the magnetism forces.
5.Let’s forget about the illusionary gravity force shall we.

[Atla]

Alta!

Please don't take this the wrong way, but your response seems more emotional than logical, no? Are you angry about some-thing?

Take something like this for example

Humans, including you, find themselves in an existential condition of only knowing observed existence over essence. Despite simple propagation of the species and genetically coded emergence, one doesn't really know how or why the world exists the way it does, much less how or why you yourself got here (conscious existence). Unless of course you can make all things ex nihilo.

on first glance I counted at least 6 things that only make some sense if you make some pretty weird assumptions

[3017Metaphysician]

Alta!

Please don't take this the wrong way, but your response seems more emotional than logical, no? Are you angry about some-thing?

Take something like this for example

Humans, including you, find themselves in an existential condition of only knowing observed existence over essence. Despite simple propagation of the species and genetically coded emergence, one doesn't really know how or why the world exists the way it does, much less how or why you yourself got here (conscious existence). Unless of course you can make all things ex nihilo.

on first glance I counted at least 6 things that only make some sense if you make some pretty weird assumptions

Alta!

Please feel free to challenge those 6 things, if you are able? Or, are we back to emotions being at root of this cause... ? Remember, emotions themselves, aren't necessarily a bad thing. Particularly relative to a-theism/theism.

[Atla]

Alta!

Please don't take this the wrong way, but your response seems more emotional than logical, no? Are you angry about some-thing?

Take something like this for example

Humans, including you, find themselves in an existential condition of only knowing observed existence over essence. Despite simple propagation of the species and genetically coded emergence, one doesn't really know how or why the world exists the way it does, much less how or why you yourself got here (conscious existence). Unless of course you can make all things ex nihilo.

on first glance I counted at least 6 things that only make some sense if you make some pretty weird assumptions

Alta!

Please feel free to challenge those 6 things, if you are able? Or, are we back to emotions being at root of this cause... ? Remember, emotions themselves, aren't necessarily a bad thing. Particularly relative to a-theism/theism.

"Back" to emotions? When were we there already? Were you?

What "essence"? How do you know there is "essence"?
Why is the observed existence known "over" the essence?
Why "despite" simple propagation of the species, when that obviously is no answer by itself?
What genetically coded emergence?
Why is the "you" equal to "conscious existence"?
Why would we need to "get here"?
Why would our getting here be even less understood than why the world is here?
What does that have to do with making things ex nihilo?
Why "all" things ex nihilo?

[3017Metaphysician]

Alta!

Please don't take this the wrong way, but your response seems more emotional than logical, no? Are you angry about some-thing?

Take something like this for example

Humans, including you, find themselves in an existential condition of only knowing observed existence over essence. Despite simple propagation of the species and genetically coded emergence, one doesn't really know how or why the world exists the way it does, much less how or why you yourself got here (conscious existence). Unless of course you can make all things ex nihilo.

on first glance I counted at least 6 things that only make some sense if you make some pretty weird assumptions

Alta!

Please feel free to challenge those 6 things, if you are able? Or, are we back to emotions being at root of this cause... ? Remember, emotions themselves, aren't necessarily a bad thing. Particularly relative to a-theism/theism.

"Back" to emotions? When were we there already? Were you?

What "essence"? How do you know there is "essence"?
Why is the observed existence known "over" the essence?
Why "despite" simple propagation of the species, when that obviously is no answer by itself?
What genetically coded emergence?
Why is the "you" equal to "conscious existence"?
Why would we need to "get here"?
Why would our getting here be even less understood than why the world is here?
What does that have to do with making things ex nihilo?
Why "all" things ex nihilo?

Alta!

Thank you kindly. Let's parse each one individually if I may (I'll pick the first two):

1.In both existentialism and metaphysics, essence refers to the nature of one's own existence, particularly, but not necessarily, involving the concept of ex nihilo. The perception by the senses that only you yourself exist, but you wonder about what, where, why, how etc. about your existence, speaks to one's essence. Of course, you could think of it as the antecedence or causal relationship to one's existence or even unity of opposites philosophy if that helps. (?)

2. As Hume would argue, as well as other existentialists, we only experience our own existence. We do this through Being self-aware, the senses and subjectivity. For example, only you know how to be you. Further, your truth is different than my truth. Accordingly, you have both objective and subjective truth's that exist in the mind. For example, subjective truth's could also speak to one having a religious experience, one's musical preferences, love interests, perception of colors, and so on. You know, essences are also relative to the quality (Qualia) of Being or the mystery or phenomena of conscious existence itself. (?)

[Atla]

Alta!

Thank you kindly. Let's parse each one individually if I may (I'll pick the first two):

1.In both existentialism and metaphysics, essence refers to the nature of one's own existence, particularly, but not necessarily, involving the concept of ex nihilo. The perception by the senses that only you yourself exist, but you wonder about what, where, why, how etc. about your existence, speaks to one's essence. Of course, you could think of it as the antecedence or causal relationship to one's existence or even unity of opposites philosophy if that helps. (?)

2. As Hume would argue, as well as other existentialists, we only experience our own existence. We do this through Being self-aware, the senses and subjectivity. For example, only you know how to be you. Further, your truth is different than my truth. Accordingly, you have both objective and subjective truth's that exist in the mind. For example, subjective truth's could also speak to one having a religious experience, one's musical preferences, love interests, perception of colors, and so on. You know, essences are also relative to the quality (Qualia) of Being or the mystery or phenomena of conscious existence itself. (?)

Isn't metaphysics a broader term? Taking one step back, I'd say it's fairly basic metaphysics that things are void of inherent essence. Essence is just what something is like.

Some philosophies like phenomenology and guess existentialism? often seem to make the serious mistake of reifying essences, treating them as kind of things that exist by themselves.

So how can something literally speak to one's essence, or what do you mean by that?

And why would I perceive only myself to exist. That would only be the case if I would't assume an external world behind the appearance of the external world. Which would be a pretty unnatural assumption for my senses. And even in solipsism, I wouldn't be sure if I am this entire "mind" or just a part of it. And none of this really has to do with essences.

[Sculptor1]

Is there an aggregated intelligence of which we are not aware? We do not know for sure, so scepticism is more logical than outright disbelief.

There is no LOGIC here.

I will answer in the same vein, by (unjustified) assertion: there IS logic there.



It's a bit like a pantomime, don't you think? "Oh yes he did!", "Oh no he didn't."

Alternatively, we could discuss matters honestly, freely admitting (where appropriate) that we are posting feelings or opinions, not justified and justifiable fact. It's a bit radical, I admit...

Fine show the logical working.
But since it is not there there is nothing more I can do but point.
Nothing in the text is a formal proposition that is tested. It's just blind expostulations.

[Sculptor1]

Were there "I an aggregated intelligence of which we are not aware? ", then it would be logically obvious that such a thing would be evident in some way. If it is of such low impact that such a thing is not evident then it of such little importance that logical disbelief is no different from logical rejection.

Now I feel impelled to re-use your own phrase: there is no logic here. Applying the adjective "logical" to that which is illogical has no effect.

And once again, you are wrong.
I react to a statement and Say WHY it leads to a specific conclusion.
You are free to demonstrate why you think it is illogical, but you do not.

[Sculptor1]

Yes you do. You use the word god all the time. You use it here and you've already used it today in another posts.
Your posts on this Forum are peppered with "god."

search.php?author_id=50224&sr=posts

You are right, i do use god, because this forum is in English, the dominant religion is Christian, and it is easier to go with the common moniker. Otherwise i would use Brhman which means Existence, all that exists. It has a different connotation from a creator god, as it creates nothing and is in everything that exists, and there is nothing that in which it does not exist. It is what i describe as Divinity, eternal, infinite, transcends time and space. And it is not just within me it is all there is.

All just fantasy creations; bluster and no meaning

It is not until they are ready to learn, that babies realize what those plastic alphabets they chew on really are. It is called evolution. We continually evolve.

Randomly arranging words as you have done, is not evolution. Its just a sad and desperate way to impose meaning on the universe.
I feel sorry for you.

[Sculptor1]

There isn't a coherent argument in this post. Which brings up a deeper issue, many theists can't follow logic, so they aren't in a position to judge whether or not atheism is logical (of course it is).

Alta!

Please don't take this the wrong way, but your response seems more emotional than logical, no? Are you angry about some-thing?

Pure Passive aggressive, theism. Love it!

Sure! the OP speaks to something transcendent of pure reason as to the actual cause of an a-theist belief system. (You know, kind of like the thing-in-itself that caused Kant to consider writing the CPR... .) Which part are you loving, the emotion or the logic?

There is next to zero logic in your theist insult.

[Pattern-chaser]

Is there an aggregated intelligence of which we are not aware? We do not know for sure, so scepticism is more logical than outright disbelief.

There is no LOGIC here.

I will answer in the same vein, by (unjustified) assertion: there IS logic there.



It's a bit like a pantomime, don't you think? "Oh yes he did!", "Oh no he didn't."

Alternatively, we could discuss matters honestly, freely admitting (where appropriate) that we are posting feelings or opinions, not justified and justifiable fact. It's a bit radical, I admit...

Fine show the logical working.
But since it is not there there is nothing more I can do but point.
Nothing in the text is a formal proposition that is tested. It's just blind expostulations.

Logic - a rational, serious, and structured mode of thought - dictates that we accept a theoretical possibility if, and only if, we have sufficient reason.

Exactly the same logic dictates that we reject a theoretical possibility if, and only if, we have sufficient reason.

If we have insufficient reason, logic dictates that we stop short of a conclusion. The theoretical possibility in question goes back into the maybe-bucket, and that is the "scepticism" that Sy Borg refers to, I think.

That all looks pretty logical to me.