When you wake up in the morning, you could see the sun rise from the east, journey across the sky and then gently sink in the western horizon. It repeats this journey every day and you observe this supposedly fixed pattern.

To conclude based on this apparent observation that the sun went round is the earth is completely a logical conclusion to make.

So, to be clear, something being logical isn't the same truth as being true.

Logic is simply the application of valid chain of reasoning principle.

a = b
b = c
therefore a = c

Now that we have this off the way, i am asking this question particularly to the atheists/agnostics like myself here.

Do you think a creator is a logical conclusion to make

You don't have to believe in something to argue it is logical.

What do you think?

If yes, Why?

If No, Why not?

To the theists

Do you think unbelief in God is a logical conclusion?

Why?

Why not?

.

seun please ban this guy up there spamming this forum with fixed match nonsense

johnydon22:
seun please ban this guy up there spamming this forum with fixed match nonsense

The guy matter don tire me sef.

My take on this is, a god is a logical assumption but not a logical conclusion. Just like in conducting experiments you have to state your initial assumptions, a god proposition is a presupposition necessary to make the religious world view work. Its like having an answer already then working backwards, the very opposite of attempting to work towards a conclusion.

Logic is a good tool when it is used right. But it is true that it can be misused.

Any honest person can tell that the Universe around us and our own selves can only be explained in one of two ways:

1. We have always been here.

2. Something more powerful and greater than the Universe put us here.

#1 proposition is obviously false. That which is eternal would necessarily be stable in its existence but the Universe decays.

#2 proposition is then left by elimination. Also, any honest observation of the Universe and our own nature as human beings leads straight to the conclusion that a God exists.


As for the question that you pose to theists in the end, unbelief in a God is illogical because it is a deliberate divorce of an obvious effect from a cause.

johnydon22:
When you wake up in the morning, you could see the sun rise from the east, journey across the sky and then gently sink in the western horizon. It repeats this journey every day and you observe this supposedly fixed pattern.

To conclude based on this apparent observation that the sun went round is the earth is completely a logical conclusion to make.

So, to be clear, something being logical isn't the same truth as being true.

Logic is simply the application of valid chain of reasoning principle.

a = b
b = c
therefore a = c

Now that we have this off the way, i am asking this question particularly to the atheists/agnostics like myself here.

Do you think a creator is a logical conclusion to make

You don't have to believe in something to argue it is logical.

You don't have to believe in something to argue it is logical, and that is because you are being honest

johnydon22:
What do you think?
If yes, Why?
If No, Why not?

Yes because, every oil painting and/or artwork, has a painter

johnydon22:
To the theists
Do you think unbelief in God is a logical conclusion?
Why?
Why not?

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God..."
- Psalm 14:1

People think Psalm 14:1, is speaking ill of atheist, that it is making wickedly cheap potshots but no, that verse, Psalm 14:1 and another one which is Psalm 53:1, are just being frank to the fact about a supposedly knowledgeable person concluding and making a wrong decision (i.e. foolish) concerning the existence of God.

Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit bowl or fruit salad. The fool might though. So we see, it is a wisdom problem, we have on our hands with atheists here about God

Back to the matter, unbelief in God is an illogical conclusion because it is foolish to take the decision to come to that conclusion of an unbelief in God. Nobody is against logic, nobody is against common sense, nobody is against conventional wisdom, but some, starve the best part of the mind because of false logic

MuttleyLaff:
You don't have to believe in something to argue it is logical because you are being honest

Yes because, every oil painting and/or artwork, has a painter

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God..."
- Psalm 14:1

People think Psalm 14:1, is speaking ill of atheist, that it is making wickedly cheap potshots but no, that verse, Psalm 14:1 and another one which is Psalm 53:1, are just being frank to the fact about a supposedly knowledgeable person concluding and making a wrong decision (i.e. foolish) concerning the existence of God.

Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit bowl or fruit salad. The fool might though. So we see, it is a wisdom problem, we have on our hands with atheists here about God

Back to the matter, unbelief in God is an illogical conclusion because it is foolish to take the decision to come to that conclusion of an unbelief in God. Nobody is against logic, nobody is against common sense, nobody is against conventional wisdom, but some, starve the best part of the mind because of false logic

Ok

Nath9638:
Please read below it

Please everyone report this slowpoke

LordReed:
My take on this is, a god is a logical assumption but not a logical conclusion. Just like in conducting experiments you have to state your initial assumptions, a god proposition is a presupposition necessary to make the religious world view work. Its like having an answer already then working backwards, the very opposite of attempting to work towards a conclusion.

How do you arrive at a conclusion?

Ihedinobi3:
Logic is a good tool when it is used right. But it is true that it can be misused.

Any honest person can tell that the Universe around us and our own selves can only be explained in one of two ways:

1. We have always been here.

2. Something more powerful and greater than the Universe put us here.

#1 proposition is obviously false. That which is eternal would necessarily be stable in its existence but the Universe decays.

#2 proposition is then left by elimination. But any honest observation of the Universe and our own nature as human beings leads straight to the conclusion that a God exists.

Isn't this conclusion based on your assumption that this powerful thing is a sentient entity?

As for the question that you pose to theists in the end, unbelief in a God is illogical because it is a deliberate divorce of an obvious effect from a cause.

So according to you, anyone who disbelieves in God thinks the universe has no cause?

Or could it be that you are assuming the nature of this cause therefore making a projection?

johnydon22:
Isn't this conclusion based on your assumption that this powerful thing is a sentient entity?

Although it is impossible that the Creator is other than sentient, the argument did not go so far as to address sentience at all.

johnydon22:
So according to you, anyone who disbelieves in God thinks the universe has no cause?

Or could it be that you are assuming the nature of this cause therefore making a projection?

God is a technical term in philosophy of religion. It does not necessarily refer to a particular identity. It is a title for anything which is self-existing and an ultimate reality/cause.

So, if anyone does not believe that a God exists, they necessarily believe that the Universe is causeless and self-existing (which means that it is God in that worldview).

johnydon22:


How do you arrive at a conclusion?

Assemble a body of facts then follow where they lead.

All I know is that God exist

Ihedinobi3:

Although it is impossible that the Creator is other than sentient, the argument did not go so far as to address sentience at all.

It does, by implication. God by definition is sentient, so when you make a conclusion that whatever caused the universe = God, you are making an argument that, universal cause = Sentient.

God is a technical term in philosophy of religion. It does not necessarily refer to a particular identity. It is a title for anything which is self-existing and an ultimate reality/cause.

No. God defines a particular type of sentient entity not just anything which is self existing. Self existing is one characteristic of God not the actual entirety of its definition, so, this is wrong.

So, if anyone does not believe that a God exists, they necessarily believe that the Universe is causeless and self-existing (which means that it is God in that worldview).

Uuuhm, No. God has a precise definition not an ambiguous term to define anything that is self existing.

LordReed:


Assemble a body of facts then follow where they lead.

Like the big bang?

Facts:
Microwave background
Redshifts
Mixture of elements

Conclusion: Big bang.

Is this it?

johnydon22:
It does, by implication. God by definition is sentient, so when you make a conclusion that whatever caused the universe = God, you are making an argument that, universal cause = Sentient.

I do agree that God is necessarily sentient, as I said in that post. But that is not an assumption behind anything I said there. I am quite happy to present a case for God's Sentience - as you are requiring me to do anyway - but the conclusion that some ultimate cause of the Universe exists is one that can be made by just the consideration that the Universe is not itself self-existing. There is no special need to assume sentience on the part of the Cause because all that matters here is that the Universe would not exist without It.

johnydon22:
No. God defines a particular type of sentient entity not just anything which is self existing. Self existing is one characteristic of God not the actual entirety of its definition, so, this is wrong.

Uuuhm, No. God has a precise definition not an ambiguous term to define anything that is self existing.

I don't find this to be true. There are multiple definitions of God in philosophy and common speech (as well as mythology) so the term does not have a precise definition, as you put it.

For that reason, there can be some debate between us as to what God as a term means.

I really don't see how anything captures the essence of the word more than the total independence of its existence. A true God would be One Whose existence is completely invulnerable to anything external to It and Whose Own Nature is so stable as to pose no threats to Its Own Self. This seems to me to be common sense. Power, that is, the ability to exert one's will is the characteristic most easily associated with deity. If a true God did not possess perfect sovereignty over Its own Self, then in what way is it a God at all?

Now you also said that self-existence is only an attribute of God, not the entirety of Its definition. This is where you can take that further. How would you define God and how would you relate that definition to self-existence as an attribute?

johnydon22:


Like the big bang?

Facts:
Microwave background
Redshifts
Mixture of elements

Conclusion: Big bang.

Is this it?

Yes.

Jesus created everything. All things were created for and by him

Colossians 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Revelation 10:6
And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who createdheaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein

Ihedinobi3:

I do agree that God is necessarily sentient, as I said in that post. But that is not an assumption behind anything I said there. I am quite happy to present a case for God's Sentience - as you are requiring me to do anyway - but the conclusion that some ultimate cause of the Universe exists is one that can be made by just the consideration that the Universe is not itself self-existing. There is no special need to assume sentience on the part of the Cause because all that matters here is that the Universe would not exist without It.



I don't find this to be true. There are multiple definitions of God in philosophy and common speech (as well as mythology) so the term does not have a precise definition, as you put it.

For that reason, there can be some debate between us as to what God as a term means.

I really don't see how anything captures the essence of the word more than the total independence of its existence. A true God would be One Whose existence is completely invulnerable to anything external to It and Whose Own Nature is so stable as to pose no threats to Its Own Self. This seems to me to be common sense. Power, that is, the ability to exert one's will is the characteristic most easily associated with deity. If a true God did not possess perfect sovereignty over Its own Self, then in what way is it a God at all?

Now you also said that self-existence is only an attribute of God, not the entirety of Its definition. This is where you can take that further. How would you define God and how would you relate that definition to self-existence as an attribute?

A self existing non sentient entity is far from the definition of God.

Reaching a conclusion that anyone who doesn't believe God created the universe implies such a person believes in a causeless universe is based on a fundamental assumption on the nature of this cause.

LordReed:


Yes.

So, a theist follows same pattern of observation;

Facts: Precision of gravitational force (too weak or too strong would mean the universe as we know won't exist)

Precision of the weak nuclear force, which anything less or more means life won't exist.

What are the odds of those happening?

Conclusion; something designed this.

How is this not a conclusion since it follows the same pattern of reaching an answer through a set up observables facts?

Ihedinobi3:
Logic is a good tool when it is used right. But it is true that it can be misused.

Any honest person can tell that the Universe around us and our own selves can only be explained in one of two ways:

1. We have always been here.

2. Something more powerful and greater than the Universe put us here.

#1 proposition is obviously false. That which is eternal would necessarily be stable in its existence but the Universe decays.

#2 proposition is then left by elimination. But any honest observation of the Universe and our own nature as human beings leads straight to the conclusion that a God exists.


As for the question that you pose to theists in the end, unbelief in a God is illogical because it is a deliberate divorce of an obvious effect from a cause.

What an abuse of reasoning.


What if Proposition #1 is true?


I believe in the eternal existence. My reasoning is that there will always be something in the future (even when our sun dies out and blows up everything in our galaxy thousands of years from now) why couldnt it be that there has always been something in the past?


There are scientists that are working with a theory of a cyclical universe in which there is constant creation and destruction

johnydon22:


A self existing non sentient entity is far from the definition of God

I agree.

Self-existence may be the fundamental definition of God but sentience is necessarily implied in it too just as all other attributes of an ultimate cause must be. That is what makes self-existence the best definition of God.

Self-existence implies personal will (sentience), an absolute lack of true opposition to the will (omnipotence), perfect comprehension of all things since the will is absolute (omniscience), transcendence over matter in every way (spirituality), transcendence over time (eternity), boundlessness (immeasurability) and utter uniqueness.

That is my argument. It is also more reason why the Universe cannot be God (it is obviously not self-existing since it decays and it is also obviously not sentient which would mean that it couldn't possibly self-exist either).

johnydon22:


So, a theist follows same pattern of observation;

Facts: Precision of gravitational force (too weak or too strong would mean the universe as we know won't exist)

Precision of the weak nuclear force, which anything less or more means life won't exist.

What are the odds of those happening?

Conclusion; something designed this.

How is this not a conclusion since it follows the same pattern of reaching an answer through a set up observables facts?

This is wrong.

Theist: Someone created the universe

Atheist: Show me this person

Theist: He is invincible. You can't see him. He is in your mind and he sent his son 2000 years ago to die for your sins

Theist 1: No. God did not have a son. That is blasphemy.

Theist 2: No. God was dating a lesser god

Theist 3: No. God is a holy dwarf

Etc with over 2,000 different descriptions

Atheist: Obviously you guys are assuming and pulling gods out of your anuses. *eats popcorn*

hahn:


This is wrong.

Theist: Someone created the universe

Atheist: Show me this person

Theist: He is invincible. You can't see him. He is in your mind and he sent his son 2000 years ago to die for your sins

Theist 1: No. God did not have a son. That is blasphemy.

Theist 2: No. God was dating a lesser god

Theist 3: No. God is a holy dwarf

Etc with over 2,000 different descriptions

Atheist: Obviously you guys are assuming and pulling gods out of your anuses. *eats popcorn*

Ok. Go troll someone else

johnydon22:


Reaching a conclusion that anyone who doesn't believe God created the universe implies such a person believes in a causeless universe is based on a fundamental assumption on the nature of this cause.

I believe I have explained that the cause cannot be other than self-existing and therefore sentient. If you believe that it can be - as it seems to me that you do -, I would be glad to hear how you explain it.

johnydon22:


Ok. Go troll someone else

Now how is that trolling?

The concept of a creator is illogical because the people who came up with such assumption have failed to provide any proof of any sort to support their claims.

Unless we are talking about a creator that loves playing hide and seek

Ihedinobi3:

I believe I have explained that the cause cannot be other than self-existing and therefore sentient. If you believe that it can be - as it seems to me that you do -, I would be glad to hear how you explain it.

You are basing your premise on the assumption that self existent which means independence of any other or lack of cause to connote sentient.

Self existent means something is without cause or require external influence doesn't mean sentient.

So, i am to counter a derived from your own assumed meaning of the concept of self existence

Jesus created everything

MrPresident1:
Jesus created everything

Yes, he even created the cross and the nail that were used to destroy him.

A very vision-less creator

JeromeBlack:



What an abuse of reasoning.


What if Proposition #1 is true?


I believe in the eternal existence. My reasoning is that there will always be something in the future (even when our sun dies out and blows up everything in our galaxy thousands of years from now) why couldnt it be that there has always been something in the past?


There are scientists that are working with a theory of a cyclical universe in which there is constant creation and destruction

Stability is fundamental to eternity. If something goes through a cycle of degradation and renewal, the question does arise: "how is that possible?"

Degradation results from failure due to the pressure of external forces. Renewal results from the same. That a thing degrades its own self makes no sense. That it renews itself after degradation makes even less sense.

On the other hand, that a thing is in a constant state of perfection makes sense if that thing is not of this Universe at all and transcends everything in existence.