4 ms·

Which is funny, because atheism is fundamentally and quite literally irrational. It rests entirely on the premise that reason plays no role in the existence or

by User23 2y ago

Which is funny, because atheism is fundamentally and quite literally irrational. It rests entirely on the premise that reason plays no role in the existence or structure of the universe. That, for no reason at all the big bang happened. Then also for no reason at all, the laws of physics permitted the formation of stars, planets, and so on. And then, also for no reason at all, some of that matter became alive. Of course we don’t really know how to define what life even is satisfactorily. And then, still for no reason at all, except apparently some built in drive to replicate (why? No reason of course) that life evolved over billions of years into something that fancies itself rational, for no reason at all. It’s quite a puzzle!

card_zero 2y ago
I like this point. But what's the issue with defining life? I don't mean "which things are hard to categorize", viruses are, but it's beside the point, isn't it? If you can get from deism, based on an argument about order, to belief in Jesus coming back to life and emitting radiation in the process, by a chain of reasoning, then more power to you. I can't imagine what the steps would be, but it's the kind of thing the Scholastics would have done.
- User23 2y ago
  > But what's the issue with defining life? All of the working definitions beg the question in some form or another. And then there's stuff like this[1]. > If you can get from deism, based on an argument about order, to belief in Jesus coming back to life and emitting radiation in the process, by a chain of reasoning, then more power to you. I can't, and I don't think any reasonable person claims that you can. My view of Christianity is that it is, basically, Greek philosophical monotheism (I'd quibble over "deism," preferring something like "philosophical monism," but it's just a quibble) with some vestigial Hebrew trappings plus historical claims based on testimonial evidence. The resurrection falls squarely in the historical claims area. It's hard to overstate the influence of Greek culture and philosophy on the Mediterranean at the time of Jesus' ministry. [1] https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/shape-is-not-enough-to-distinguish-life-from-abiotic-systems/4017874.article https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/shape-is-not-enough-t...
FrustratedMonky 2y ago
"Which is funny, because atheism is fundamentally and quite literally irrational. " This sounds like the 'no you' response. You didn't make any point. Just because there are open questions doesn't mean there is a god. There are unknowns -> ? -> Must be god. All of the same arguments you made also apply to aliens. Even if I were to follow your argument as "there are unknowns thus god", I'm pretty sure it isn't the Christian God. The god that can create the entire universe, focused down on a few lost tribes and said 'you guys are my dudes, and only you'.
- User23 2y ago
  I made a point, but you got defensive and missed it. I’m not defending theism, I’m pointing out what I find to be an amusing irony about supposedly rationalist atheism. I’m not pointing out open questions, I’m presenting offered answers. To the atheist that all these things happened for no reason at all isn’t an open question, it’s a definitively held belief. > Just because there are open questions doesn't mean there is a god. There are unknowns -> ? -> Must be god. > I were to follow your argument as "there are unknowns thus god You are hallucinating an argument I never made. If you want to engage please address what I actually wrote. This has nothing to do with “god of the gaps” or any such thing. It’s simply highlighting the definitively held atheist belief that reason played no role in any of the given phenomena. > All of the same arguments you made also apply to aliens. This doesn’t make any sense. But sure an atheist might believe that alien life also evolved, once again, for no reason at all. Or are you trying to propose something more sophisticated like that our reality is a simulation created by advanced aliens? Positing that our reality was created by an in some sense superior alien intelligence or intelligences does mean things didn’t happen for no reason at all. It’s moderately interesting to compare simulationism with other intelligent design theories. I’m not going to do that here, but I will note that “supernatural” literally just means above nature, so vis a vis our perceived reality the creator or creators of the simulation would be supernatural beings. Similarly any admin actions they might take would be miraculous.
  - card_zero 2y ago
    You know, you're only saying that it's in a manner of speaking anti-rational to deny the existence of a god who is, presumably, supremely rational. It's an amusing observation, but it doesn't follow that it's reasonable to think the being exists just because the being is supposed to be reasonable. And this argument certainly sounds similar to the "God of the gaps" argument. Instead of "there are things science can't explain" it's more like "the scientific world view doesn't satisfy my gut feeling that things happen for reasons", but that's a similar kind of gap, just a more philosophical one.

by User23 2y ago

card_zero 2y ago

I like this point. But what's the issue with defining life? I don't mean "which things are hard to categorize", viruses are, but it's beside the point, isn't it? If you can get from deism, based on an argument about order, to belief in Jesus coming back to life and emitting radiation in the process, by a chain of reasoning, then more power to you. I can't imagine what the steps would be, but it's the kind of thing the Scholastics would have done.

User23 2y ago
> But what's the issue with defining life? All of the working definitions beg the question in some form or another. And then there's stuff like this[1]. > If you can get from deism, based on an argument about order, to belief in Jesus coming back to life and emitting radiation in the process, by a chain of reasoning, then more power to you. I can't, and I don't think any reasonable person claims that you can. My view of Christianity is that it is, basically, Greek philosophical monotheism (I'd quibble over "deism," preferring something like "philosophical monism," but it's just a quibble) with some vestigial Hebrew trappings plus historical claims based on testimonial evidence. The resurrection falls squarely in the historical claims area. It's hard to overstate the influence of Greek culture and philosophy on the Mediterranean at the time of Jesus' ministry. [1] https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/shape-is-not-enough-to-distinguish-life-from-abiotic-systems/4017874.article https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/shape-is-not-enough-t...

FrustratedMonky 2y ago

"Which is funny, because atheism is fundamentally and quite literally irrational. " This sounds like the 'no you' response. You didn't make any point. Just because there are open questions doesn't mean there is a god. There are unknowns -> ? -> Must be god. All of the same arguments you made also apply to aliens. Even if I were to follow your argument as "there are unknowns thus god", I'm pretty sure it isn't the Christian God. The god that can create the entire universe, focused down on a few lost tribes and said 'you guys are my dudes, and only you'.

User23 2y ago
I made a point, but you got defensive and missed it. I’m not defending theism, I’m pointing out what I find to be an amusing irony about supposedly rationalist atheism. I’m not pointing out open questions, I’m presenting offered answers. To the atheist that all these things happened for no reason at all isn’t an open question, it’s a definitively held belief. > Just because there are open questions doesn't mean there is a god. There are unknowns -> ? -> Must be god. > I were to follow your argument as "there are unknowns thus god You are hallucinating an argument I never made. If you want to engage please address what I actually wrote. This has nothing to do with “god of the gaps” or any such thing. It’s simply highlighting the definitively held atheist belief that reason played no role in any of the given phenomena. > All of the same arguments you made also apply to aliens. This doesn’t make any sense. But sure an atheist might believe that alien life also evolved, once again, for no reason at all. Or are you trying to propose something more sophisticated like that our reality is a simulation created by advanced aliens? Positing that our reality was created by an in some sense superior alien intelligence or intelligences does mean things didn’t happen for no reason at all. It’s moderately interesting to compare simulationism with other intelligent design theories. I’m not going to do that here, but I will note that “supernatural” literally just means above nature, so vis a vis our perceived reality the creator or creators of the simulation would be supernatural beings. Similarly any admin actions they might take would be miraculous.
- card_zero 2y ago
  You know, you're only saying that it's in a manner of speaking anti-rational to deny the existence of a god who is, presumably, supremely rational. It's an amusing observation, but it doesn't follow that it's reasonable to think the being exists just because the being is supposed to be reasonable. And this argument certainly sounds similar to the "God of the gaps" argument. Instead of "there are things science can't explain" it's more like "the scientific world view doesn't satisfy my gut feeling that things happen for reasons", but that's a similar kind of gap, just a more philosophical one.