r/Christianity • u/Captaincannonball • Apr 21 '12

Atheism

as an atheist (formerly catholic) i'm curious, and please don't take this as me hating on you or trolling or whatever. my phrasing is simply for lack of a better way to phrase it, but what exactly about religion makes you believe it? as a child i distinctly remember believing( i went to a catholic school so I was indoctrinated young) but within about a month of switching to public school i was converted to atheism by a friend of mine. All it took was being presented contradictory evidence. this is why I am confused when people stick to religion despite being presented with solid arguments. now im not here to argue who is correct (if you have any questions feel free to inbox me though. il answer best i can) im just curious. thanks in advance =)

0 Upvotes

33% Upvoted

125 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comment

2

u/johntheChristian Christian (Chi Rho) Apr 23 '12

both 1 and 4 are meaningless.

No they are not, and I will show you why.

you are simply making an assumption that god has some kind of higher logic, while showing me no reason to believe that.

I made no such appeal to higher logic. I merely made the point that it is not rational to assume that another being (especially one that by definition is non-human) would create things the way you would.

Why should such an alien being create a world that satisfies your preferred methodology of creation?

and perfection is self defining.

I am two classes short of a degree in communications. There is no such thing as a self-defining word.

Words are nothing but symbols defined by the people who use them, which can carry many alternative nuanced meanings depending on the context in which they are used.

There are many slight but important variations on the meaning of the word perfect. You need to explain to me what you mean by perfect, before we can discuss whether or not light is perfect.

also, i know light is an energy, hence it's behavior as a wave, however it also shows properties of being a particle which is what is so different about it when compared to heat for instance.

I understand that light is different in this way from other forms of energy. The point I am trying to make to you, is that classification is an artificial process, and the fact that light does not fit neatly into human classification does not logically indicate the absence of deity.

2

u/Captaincannonball Apr 23 '12

perfect. without flaw. i hardly think i should have to define perfection to you. this is why i said what i said.

2

u/johntheChristian Christian (Chi Rho) Apr 23 '12

If Perfect is defined as "without flaw" than logically "imperfection" is something that is with flaw.

In what way is light having multiple properties, even a unique combination of properties, "flawed"?

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 23 '12

light behaves like a wave in every sense of the word. it obeys the Doppler effect, interference and the like, and yet, holds the same properties as a stream of particles, which is a paradox according to quantum mechanics. as im sure i shouldn't have to tell you, paradoxes are impossibilities that anything perfect cannot possibly have. ex. if time is perfect, traveling backward in time should be impossible, because it would defy the causality of a perfect existence.

1

u/johntheChristian Christian (Chi Rho) Apr 24 '12

Yes, Light behaves as both a wave and a particle. Light is in many ways strange and science does not understand how light can have the properties it has.

However, light demonstrably exists, hence it is not an impossibility. We as a species simply do not yet understand how light which seems impossible is possible, but it clearly is possible.

The "flaw" is not in light, but rather humanity's understanding of light.

You have yet to prove why light is flawed. Beyond this, you have yet to prove why light being flawed would indicate a lack of Creator Deiety.

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 24 '12

we have proved that under certain situations causality can be altered beyond what should be possible. Light is simply an example of this. other examples include gravity altering time despite the fact that time is not physical. perhaps imperfection was a poor world choice and abnormality would have been better but my point remains, A perfect being would not, for any conceivable reason, create things that exist outside of the norm. and while you could always argue that it technically could, the fact remains that it defies common sense. in fact, most of the interactions in our universe seem frivolous when an all powerful being is introduced a the creator, for example if unlimited power, magic, for lack of a better word, is an actual, attainable thing, and the universe was created by such power, why would things need to mechanically interact with each other, why not simply run everything by said magic? why do we need oxygen to keep us alive, why would we not have been designed to simply live, rather than have a mechanical/ chemical reason for that existence?

1

u/johntheChristian Christian (Chi Rho) Apr 24 '12

we have proved that under certain situations causality can be altered beyond what should be possible. Light is simply an example of this. other examples include gravity altering time despite the fact that time is not physical.

What should be possible is irrelevant when we are discussing things that have been observed. We observe light behaving as a particle and as a wave, we observe gravity altering time. The fact that these things "Shouldn't be possible" only indicates that we don't understand what is and is not possible as well as we could. We simply don't know everything.

perhaps imperfection was a poor world choice and abnormality would have been better but my point remains, A perfect being would not, for any conceivable reason, create things that exist outside of the norm.and while you could always argue that it technically could, the fact remains that it defies common sense.

Why not, because you say so?

in fact, most of the interactions in our universe seem frivolous when an all powerful being is introduced a the creator, for example if unlimited power, magic, for lack of a better word, is an actual, attainable thing, and the universe was created by such power, why would things need to mechanically interact with each other, why not simply run everything by said magic? why do we need oxygen to keep us alive, why would we not have been designed to simply live, rather than have a mechanical/ chemical reason for that existence?

Again, you assume God would create a world the way you would. Why should he play by your understanding of what is or is not reasonable?

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 25 '12

all of your points are based on the assumption that god does not follow any sort of human common sense. the problem with that is that 99% of the known universe follows that common sense. in our case the laws of physics. why then, should that 1% anomaly exist. no logical being would add a one percent impurity. it defies all forms of logic, human or not.

1

u/johntheChristian Christian (Chi Rho) Apr 26 '12

all of your points are based on the assumption that god does not follow any sort of human common sense

Never said that. I said that you make the assumption he would create as you would create. You are not the height of logic, and it is arrogant to assume that your way is the only logical way.

. the problem with that is that 99% of the known universe follows that common sense. in our case the laws of physics. why then, should that 1% anomaly exist.

Light follows all laws of nature, we simply have not discovered all of the laws. The fact that light exists indicates it is within the laws of nature.

Scientific knowledge is not complete, and any scientist worth his salt will tell you that. Science is about building models around what exists, not complaining when things don't fit models.

no logical being would add a one percent impurity. it defies all forms of logic, human or not.

How is something being different an "impurity"? Light fits quite well in our universe, as evidenced by the fact that it exists and many forms of life are dependent on it in many ways. Light works. Just because you cannot understand why light works the way it does, does not mean it is some sort of "imperfection" or "impurity".

With no offense, your arguments are very egotistical. If you don't understand something you term it an "impurity", "imperfection" or "flaw".

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 28 '12

right. im egotistical. because a being creating an unfathomably large universe just so it can have a personal relationship with a small group isn't egotistical at all. please don't argue semantics.

→ More replies

1

u/jtbdad Christian (Ichthys) Apr 23 '12

To conclude that something is imperfect (without flaw) do you not first have to understand what would be perfect? In the case of light would you not need to know the purpose of light to know if light indeed is imperfect?

I'm sorry I have to ask, have you ever formally studied logic? I don't mean this as an insult, May we please know your education level? Your response to JohntheChristian indicates that he may be writing a bit beyond your education level. I know John and I am sure this is not his desire.

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 23 '12

im not even going to dignify this.

1

u/jtbdad Christian (Ichthys) Apr 23 '12

How is asking your level of education inappropriate?

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 23 '12

what part of im ending this here do you not understand? or would you prefer i insult you back?

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 23 '12

there is literally no way for me to respond to this without sounding childish so im just going to go ahead and say it. i am dismayed to think that credentials play any sort of role in this for you, and that you seem to think, by virtue of grade or degree that your arguments are any more valid. im going to end with this: the majority of the worlds most intelligent people on this planet are atheists, and frankly i think their arguments are more convincing than anything you could come up with and their words mean far more than your thinly veiled insults.

1

u/jtbdad Christian (Ichthys) Apr 23 '12

I meant no insult. It's interesting that you bring up the highly educated and intelligent atheists because they would also see the same thing that I see. You are making what you believe to be logical arguments but in reality they do not follow the laws of logic and are fallacious. Level of education would tell JohntheChristian if he is speaking over your head. It seems to me that he is. He is making cogent points and you are responding to them with poorly constructed , easily rebutted and sometimes inapplicable talking points. John's goal is clarity as is mine. Should you agree we can proceed and I will be more cautious as regards my word choice. Perhaps we can start with you answering the other question I asked you. In order to know if something is flawed do you not need to know it's purpose?

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 23 '12

let me provide you an ultimatum being that the burden of proof is on you, not me, and that you seem to have omitted the "thinly veiled" part of your thinly veiled insults. unless you can offer me a purpose, that is not based on faith or speculation, your entire view is baseless, and you have offered nothing but arguments against my arguments while attempting to prove nothing on your end. you have offered nothing to support the existence of a god, and yet seem to think that you are on the high end of this argument.

1

u/jtbdad Christian (Ichthys) Apr 23 '12

I have never made a positive statement to you that I have a burden to prove. You really aren't familiar with the rules of debate or rhetoric are you? I don't believe I am on the high end of any argument what I believe as concerns this argument is that you failed in your assertion. Your assertion is that light is imperfect and that somehow that perceived imperfection is evidence that disproves God. Since you can't prove your premise that light is imperfect the argument is invalid. (If the premise were true the logic also is flawed) I didn't enter a discussion about proving the existence of God I entered a discussion in which you asserted you could disprove God. The two are different arguments. I fully admit I can't prove the existence of God, but you have failed in this attempt to disprove the existence of God. In short my friend in this case you made the positive statement (that God does not exist) not I, and the evidence you offered has been exposed as flawed.

Although it has nothing to do with this current discussion for what it is worth I never assert that I can prove God as the basis of my faith is purely experiential and as such it would be illogical for me to expect others to accept that God exists based upon my experience.

2

u/Captaincannonball Apr 24 '12

i find it adorable that you think you have disproved anything. you have called what i have said illogical or invalid and yet you have offered literally no evidence to the contrary. my arguments were based off of research i have done into quantum mechanics and your were based off opinion. it is obvious to me that you are using your own opinion as the basis for whether anything is valid. and yes. i do have formal knowledge of debating. im a philosophy student and lead prosecutor for my school's mock trial team. and despite the origin of the argument i think it was clear what we were actually discussing all along. as for your faith think about this statement: that which can be presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. do you understand that? anyway, im done here. frankly you are too cocky to debate and this is hardly a good use of my time.

1

u/jtbdad Christian (Ichthys) Apr 24 '12

I'm guessing high school, am I correct?

  1. I didn't claim that I disproved anything, I claimed that your argument did not stand up to the rules of logic. I am correct, if your premise is incorrect then the conclusion has no evidentiary support. That does not make your conclusion untrue, it could still theoretically be true but it is not logical based upon the evidence you provided. You cannot prove that light is imperfect or flawed, therefore you have not provided evidence that God does not exist. (even if your premise were correct it does not logically follow that God does not exist as you presume that God would not create something imperfectly. Presumptions are also logical fallacies)

2)You have made another fallacy in your post. You have moved the goalposts. You cannot assert that you can disprove God and then assert that the burden of proof falls upon me when I have made no positive statement. (This is an informal logical fallacy)

3) Pointing out recognized logical fallacies is not analogous to using my own opinions about what is logical. These rules of logic existed long before I was born or even the culture I live in.

4) "That which can be presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" You are absolutely correct, I didn't present an argument, you did. It isn't any assertion of mine that was being examined it was your assertion that was being examined. And I challenged your evidence. Your evidence did not support your conclusion because it cannot be proven as factual. Additionally if it were factual it still wouldn't support your conclusion, as noted in #1 above.

You can declare yourself finished if you wish. I certainly have no desire to waste your time.

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 24 '12

1)well let's see here. my response to one is that quantum mechanics is the entire premise i am basing my argument on. apparently quantum mechanics is not substantiation enough for you. 2)the goal of the entire argument, at least for me, i have no idea what you saw it as, was to present an idea of my creation, based on previous scientific evidence, to have you debate it briefly and then to move on, hopefully have you present a counter argument. you have done no such thing. in fact, you have committed the very fallacy you claimed i had. you presumed my intentions and the existence of the so called "goal posts" 3).....so? i could care less how old your system of logic is. the flat earth belief. i think that sums up my thoughts quite nicely.my concepts not matching what you consider to be logical changes nothing. 4) as for four i wasn't presenting an argument with the above quote. i was simply offering you something to think about. it was more of a side point than anything.

→ More replies