The Illogic of Atheism? (if you like math and logic - no bible quotes pls)

Status
Not open for further replies.
riddarhusetgal

riddarhusetgal

Incongruous Juxtaposition
May 2, 2007
1,864
70
0
This is an intellectual exercise and I have no vested interest in converting atheists into believers (unless there is some CPA offered involved, lol).

For the sake of clarity, please don't answer with any religious arguments that aren't grounded in the laws of logic, rationality, math or science....



Preface:
(i) I define god=man's creator, the definition given by the dictionary.
(ii) I define an atheist using common, everyday language, i.e. someone who does not believe man was created by "god" (I don't want to get wrapped up in the technical definition of atheism)


Further I state that:



·PREMISE [A]: Everything that man has observed in the natural world has a proven creator
(the scientific can proves this)

·PREMISE : Man has always observed himself in the natural world
(the scientific method can prove)


·PREMISE [C]: Therefore, man must have a creator.


This conclusion is based on the transitive law of math which states that if a=b and b=c then a=c.


To disprove [C] you must scientifically disprove either [A] or ….or [A] AND


Again above is based on the Transitive law of match and logic and Aristotle's concept of Syllogism
- transitive law -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
Syllogism/transitive-law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IF you cannot disprove either [A] or or [A] + and still do not believe [C], by the laws of math and logic, your belief is neither rational nor logical.

If you find this curious, please direct your agreement or objections towards the premises and NOT the framework for the argument as the Transitive law of logic/math is accepted as scientific fact.
 


Religion is a system used to control the masses to further the agenda of those who "know" the gimick.

Like politics.
 
First of all I am an agnostic. There is no "firm" evidence of any "Creator" but that doesn't mean one theoretically couldn't exist. Evolution though makes more sense than the conventional "Loving Creator" who sits in the clouds keeping score on his laptop like we're all a fucking PPC campaign AND there is very solid evidence of evolution all around us.

I can agree with your statement that man has a "creator" or in other words something in time created the possibility for us to exist. If this was some "old man in the sky" he really fucked up bad.

PREMISE [A]: Everything that man has observed in the natural world has a proven creator
(the scientific can proves this)
Click to expand...
Exactly Science proves we all come from somewhere natural aka "NOT GOD" we are decendants of our Mother and Father, Grandfathers Grandmothers etc... all the way back to when life was created.

Evolution explains so much about how we got to where we are today, but it doesn't explain how life started in the first place.

How was life created on earth? I have no idea but I am willing to bet my "Eternal Soul" it had nothing to do with Jesus, Adam and Eve, or Satan.

Basically it comes down to this. I don't deny there could be a "creator" as that could be a logical theory, but to say this "creator" loves everyone etc... and embrace any kind of religion is NOT thinking logically because I can disprove a loving god with your formula simply by observation.

If "god" loved everyone equally we would all live in a utopia and there would be no sickness, pain, suffering, death etc..

We can observe this because a Parent (God) who loves their child or creation (Us) with all there heart, aka unconditional love, will do everything they can to help their child succeed and live a happy life.

Sure you can say, "Then explain why same crazy lady in the news killed her child!"

And to that I would say love is action. If you unconditionally love your child you will not let him or her suffer needlessly when you have it in your power to help him.

Therefore we can conclude that if a Mother kills her child or lets her child suffer needlessly she is either:

A Insane

or

B: Does not love her child.


So using the formula you provided

A. If we observe a loving parent they would never let their child suffer needlessly.

B. We see the world we live in and see rampant disease and tons of fucked up shit that shouldn't exist if we all had an "all powerful" LOVING parent watching over and protecting all of us because we can observe that a loving parent doesn't let her child suffer needlessly.

C. Therefore "god" or the creator must not love us.


Sure this doesn't disprove that something may have "created" us, but to believe this being loves or cares for us is completely illogical when you observe the world around us.

Basically any organized religion that teaches that this "Creator" loves or cares about us is bullshit.

And until Jesus appears to me, google slaps me across my face, tells me he is real, AND heals all the amputees of the world I will not believe.

And if he really loves me and doesn't want me to go to hell he will appear. If he doesn't appear and tells me he's real, then the obviously conclusion is he doesn't love or care about me which makes the BIBLE UNTRUE.

(But if by some chance he does appear to me, I will promptly check into the nearest mental institution)

-Trigger
 
nice try, but your logic is flawed... kinda hard to make a logic based argument when you can't get the logic part right...

as Trigger pointed out there is no proven creator... unless you can come up with proof of one, your above statement is just a big helping of fail pie...
 
The logic of religion:

300px-FairytaleLP.jpg
 
PREMISE A
Everything that man has observed in the natural world was created by a large Jellyfish named Pete
(the scientific can proves this)

PREMISE B
Man has always observed himself in the natural world
(the scientific method can prove)

PREMISE C
Therefore, man must have been created by a large Jellyfish named Pete

Disprove that bitch.
 
_poto_ said:
nice try, but your logic is flawed... kinda hard to make a logic based argument when you can't get the logic part right...

as Trigger pointed out there is no proven creator... unless you can come up with proof of one, your above statement is just a big helping of fail pie...
Click to expand...

:updown: Thank you, I thought I'd have to say it :updown:
 
A ^ B does not imply C. If A were "Everything that man CAN observe has a creator", (and if A were true), then A ^ B would imply C. In fact you could weaken B to be "Man has observed himself in the natural world" and A ^ B would obviously still imply C. But your assumptions that A and especially A ^ B -> C are both true are completely unproven.

The two things that would contradict your logic are anything that have no proven creator (eg the universe) or possibly something man has not observed yet.
 
Nice attempt OP, but any Internet conversation involving atheism will inevitably degenerate into mindless trolling and flaming.

Here's my thoughts:
-Mankind cannot perceive and understand the universe due to our inherent lack of senses and overclocked monkey brains.
-The Universe is really fucking big
-Due to how fucking big said universe is, it is likely that other intelligent life exists.
-And that's just in our 3 dimensional reality as we perceive it. What about beings that exist in 4 dimensions, ie can walk back and forth through what we perceive as time?
-The big bang has one big flaw in the whole theory - where did that speck of matter (the one that exploded into the universe) come from?

I find it incredibly narrow-minded (not to mention arrogant) to assume that we humans are the most complex, intelligent species in the entire universe. I find it reasonable to believe that some higher being is playing a really complex game of The Sims with the human race, at least just about as reasonable as believing that a whole bunch of nothing that exploded into everything, which turned into dinosaurs.
 
  1. Everything that has ever happened is based on cause and effect. True 'random' does not exist.
  2. Every 'cause' is a 'effect' of a previous action.
'God' is a cause, but not an effect. Therefore, cannot exist in the 'cause and effect' world.
An eternal circle seems more reasonable.
 
So now instead of religious people having to prove things, atheists have to prove things dont' exist.

LOL

Why not just accept that everyone is different and has their own views. Instead of trying to prove that yours is the best or only way be open to the fact that not everyone rolls the same way.
 
Very true. It's probably the only argument one can have where the side that does not believe is asked to prove they don't believe. That right there defies all logic and reasoning. I've yet to hear any reasonable evidence for the existence of a "god", or even a higher being for that matter.
 
Let's turn this into "Post you funny religion bashing picture" thread

Here's mine
 
xentech said:
PREMISE A
Everything that man has observed in the natural world was created by a large Jellyfish named Pete
(the scientific can proves this)

PREMISE B
Man has always observed himself in the natural world
(the scientific method can prove)

PREMISE C
Therefore, man must have been created by a large Jellyfish named Pete

Disprove that bitch.
Click to expand...

And we have a winner.

It's tempting to lock the thread right here, since all the universal questions have now been answered.
 
Praise the almighty Jelly Fish!








Now how many people can I convince to join m new jelly fish religion? I'll think I'll add some sort of rebill to it.

Face book here I come
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back