@Urfi said in Fact check with Pet: Why atheism is irrational:
Many of theists assume atheists have never read bible or any philosopher's argument. But they are wrong 100%. Unlike theism, atheism is never based on instincts. They have risen above it. Coming to your question, I can even write an essay on St. Thomas Aquinus. I studied western and Indian philosophy 3 years ago. I'm recalling it :). Summa Theologica was work of Aquinus. He elaborated five proofs for the existence of God in his work. Also, writing St. before his name would be more respectful
Indeed it would have been, thank you for reminding me
Actually most atheists at least in the west have no philosophical education, they are normal people just like those who go to church often don't really understand theology. But I assume it is different in india (assuming that is where you are from).
I wonder if those numbers would still be the same if everyone had understood these things... But yeah, it is no proof.
It does not make any sense because you have just a mindset.
I'm just wondering if it would be different, that's all. I mean education does influence opinion
Lets assume god created the universe according to bible's genesis, God needed 6 days to create the universe but he did rest on 7th day though. What kind of almighty creator needs rest ? One more thing, a day is the time needed for Earth to complete one rotation on its axis. So how days passed if Earth and Sun were not created yet? How did he measured this time?
Why would you even assume, that I'd take the bible literally? That indeed would be a lack of intelligence (sorry to everyone who does)
Here you are being hypocrite. Why should we assume universe without god's existence ? An assumption is called supposition or Guess. An intelligent man would always write both guesses.
- Assuming God didn't create the universe - You assumed this one
- Assuming God created the universe - I assumed this one.
I don't understand why you mention this here. I was saying that taking the bible literally in this sense (assuming God created the world in 7 earth days) would be a lack of intelligence, or maybe a lazyness of thinking, on my part, since taking it literally in this sense is already contradictory because of the existence of two contradicting generation stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.
for the following reason: Genesis actually contains two accounts of how the earth was created (see my post for further info).
I saw your post about genesis but it couldn't answer my questions. He completed his work in 7 days and did rest for one day. What kind of rest did the almighty creator want ? Your genesis was unable to elaborate anything about planets. How did he count 7 days without knowing anything about day and night ?
What I meant by not reading Genesis literally is that I don't take the 7 days to be literal days of any kind. I take these as symbolic. For example the fact, that the first thing that God creates is light. This doesn't make any sense from a scientific viewpoint, and the people who lived back then had the same IQ level as us (if we believe the scientific consensus on human development). It must have been obvious even to them, that the sun is in fact the origin of light. Actually there are enough ancient texts that show that people did in fact understand this. So why in the world would God create light before the sun or the stars?
The answer is, that this is the light of reason, of understanding, of truth. If you want to understand where I'm coming from I recommend Dr. Jordan Peterson's lecturs on the psychological significance of the bible.
This in turn means, that also the other days are to be understand symbolically. It shows how God ordered everything, not just the things he created but also the time. All of Genesis speaks about God's relation to His creation and specifically His relation to us and our relation to Him and our relation to creation. God orders our life according to the order of days. This is what it is about.
The sabbath is the holy day, it is the day of service to the Lord. It is on this day, that we pray most, and that we rest. And God does enjoy this love we bring Him on the seventh day. And if you enjoy something you can really relax.
So as you can see, all of Genesis is really about the relationship between God and us. Not about how the earth was created in a literal sense.
If everything must have a cause, then God
must have a cause.
Reason has to conclude that there must be one thing that has no cause...
This chain will never end up because one thing too should have a cause
This is the central question. Every element in the chain has the one element before it as cause, as reason for being there. But what reason does the whole chain have? There is no rational answer to this question. This is the point of the whole argument.
If God is not the root cause of the chain, then the chain is endless. But saying that the chain is endless does not absolve it from needing a cause to exist in the first place. Human reason demands this, we cannot think any other way. So if the chain was indeed endless (which is the only alternative to God being the root cause) then it would not make sense to reason, it would be irrational.
What in the world could be its own reason?
Can the world really be its own reason?
Surely it cannot be the reason of itself.
Wouldn't this make the world godly?
If he was the root cause of all things, we couldn't perceive daily that many objects like houses, pots etc ain't produced by God.
By what argument do you assume, that if God was the root cause, there could not be any houses?
We observe that many human beings like masons and even lower animals like ants and bees act together harmoniously to build objects like palaces, ant-hills and hives. This doesn't make world godly
Ants are not their own reason, they are there because of evolution (assuming evolution theory is correct). The harmony has developed. But everything in nature has a reason that is before it. Everything is caused. If the world however is not caused it must be its own reason. This is what could give it a godly nature.
Even if you would disagree with what those questions imply, this is still a bit more than just an elephant on a turtoise.
Again, this chain will never end up.
The point is that God is his own reason and his own cause and since this is not understandable to our mind, He is irrational.
However to say this about the world (being its own reason and being its own cause), which is the only alternative, sounds quite strange. And it means the world would be non-understandable, irrational.
There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause;
There is absolutely any reason to assume that there should be nothing and no reason at all to assume that the world could have come into being without a cause or without even the possibility of coming into being. Things don't just happen. That idea is more than just irrational...
nor, on the other
hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning
is really due to the poverty of our imagination.
You are right, you can assume that the world is eternal. And yes, it is due to our inability to understand the nature of this one first reason. It will forever remain non-understandable to us, for this is how reason works. And this is the definition of the word irrational: it makes no sense to our reason (latin: ratio).
Which is exactly the point of the argument I am making.
And it is not a question of who is more intelligent. Every atheist will agree that this conundrum is indeed irrational, once she understands what I am talking about. It's just like with mathematics: you have to agree that 1+2 = 2. Before you understood it, you might not have agreed, but once you understand it, you have no choice.
And I mean what should they do about it? They have two irrational choices, believe in God or an eternal irrational world. Of course they'd chose what their peers chose: atheism...
They have choice of perception which you never included
What do you mean by this?
I concede that there is a third choice: Agnosticism. Which means not believing that there is a God but saying you cannot know. In my opinion this is actually the only real alternative to believing that God exists.
This can be answered with cause-effect reasoning. A cause-effect relationship is a relationship in which one event (the cause) makes another event happen (the effect). One cause can have several effects. Assuming again god created this universe, universe is the product of him. Every product like a house, is the work of an agent therefore the world which is a product, must have an agent or creator who is called god. But we know this inference is inconclusive, because the one of the premise 'the world is a product' is doubtful. How is it proved that the world is a product? It can't be said that the world is a product because it has parts. Wherever we perceive anything being produced, the producer or the agent is found to work on the material with his limbs.
We don't have to bring the idea of product into this. The world is a causal thing. Look out the window. Everything happens for a reason. Trees grow, because a seed once fell into the gorund and the sun gives its energy. The argument has nothing to do with wether the world is a product or not. Causality is enough, and causality is real.
We have to bring this one as well. An Indian theist branch 'Nyaya' holds this argument of cause-effect reasoning for proving the existence of God.
I do agree it is worth considering. But I do not understand why it is necessary to consider it in the context of above argument. Please elaborate.
God is said to be bodiless. How can he then work on matter to produce the world?
Yeah, God is also irrational. We cannot understand how he could work on matter. Just as we cannot understand a world that created itself or has no reason.
At least we can trust on our perception because it is the only reliable source remained. It can elaborate who created this universe.
Perception is a funny thing and there could be said a lot about wether it is trustworthy or not. But lets assume we can rely on it. As you can see causality is an observable thing. It is the basis for my argument. Thus from this basis I concluded toward the reason for existence.
My logic allows me to write some prepositions-
- Everyhting has a creator
- God is that creator
Illogical conclusion- God does not have a creator (it fails because it violates its own premise here )
Yes, the fact that God is His own reason, is not understandable by our rational minds. And neither is a causal chain without any reason for existing. There simply is no rational answer to the question of why there is anything.