Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Dimensio
It requires much more faith -- not reason -- to be an atheist than to believe in a creator. . . .Justify this statement.

I'm defining atheist as someone who rejects the possibility of forces that can't be measured while recognizing reality. This requires the atheist to believe the world around us came about solely through radom reactions between matter and energy. The probabilities of this occuring are low. So low, in fact, you need a faith much blinder than mine to accept them.

Now, you can make an argument that there is an undiscovered (measurable) force that will make this explanation sensisble. But that's faith, and it's faith based on nothing more than a deeply held belief that God can't exist. And a deeply held belief that something is impossible without evidence of it being impossible is irrational.

And I haven't even discussed the First Law of Thermodynamics or the axiomatic impossibilitiy of the spontaneous generation of life.

486 posted on 11/21/2003 11:07:52 AM PST by Tribune7 (It's not like he let his secretary drown in his car or something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 478 | View Replies ]


To: Tribune7
I'm defining atheist as someone who rejects the possibility of forces that can't be measured while recognizing reality.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle stipulates that there are forces that can't be measured (like the exact velocity and position of a particle at the same time). If you're speaking of forces that can't be measured under any circumstances, then I don't reject them -- I simply have no use for them. If they can't be detected, then there's nothing useful that can be determined from them.

This requires the atheist to believe the world around us came about solely through radom reactions between matter and energy. The probabilities of this occuring are low.

Please show the calculations of these probabilities. Show work.

So low, in fact, you need a faith much blinder than mine to accept them.

Thus far your argument seems to be "I can't imagine how this world came to exist through natural processes, therefore supernatural processes must be involved." That's called the argument from ignorance.

Now, you can make an argument that there is an undiscovered (measurable) force that will make this explanation sensisble. But that's faith, and it's faith based on nothing more than a deeply held belief that God can't exist.

I make no arguments as to the origin of the planet or the universe apart from the argument that it must have happened in some way or another, because here we are. Further, I've never stated that "God can't exist". I've only stated that, thus far, I've seen no reason to believe that the god you worship or that any gods worshipped by other people exist.

And I haven't even discussed the First Law of Thermodynamics or the axiomatic impossibilitiy of the spontaneous generation of life.

I await any arguments that you make regarding these topics.
494 posted on 11/21/2003 11:35:12 AM PST by Dimensio (The only thing you feel when you take a human life is recoil. -- Frank "Earl" Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 486 | View Replies ]

To: Tribune7
or the axiomatic impossibilitiy

Heh. "the axiomatic impossibility". Now there's a constructive argument.

498 posted on 11/21/2003 12:13:11 PM PST by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 486 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson