Abu Hanifa and Some Atheists - Debate Thread.

[Zafran]

Most atheists I personally know, including myself, are simply honest enough to admit that they don't know how or if the universe had a start. I feel no discomfort in not knowing and I feel no need to latch onto or create a story to explain it. Creation myths are just another case of God-of-the-gaps.



Well sure, you can turn Allah into magic to avoid the application of logic to him, but any non-believer is going to see that as a cop-out.

There are only 2 problems I have

1 - Your sure that there is no God right as your position is atheist - or is there a possiblity according to you?

2 - There are many logical arguments (I'm sure you've heard of some of them) that can prove God - however you dont accept those arguments - its as simple as that.

 

[Azy]

I am sure you are aware of the infinite regression that follows without Allah, the uncreated beginning.

I don't see how an uncreated Allah removes the infinite regression problem. From a scientific non-theist point of view this isn't a problem, time and space are two aspects of the same thing, there is no such thing as time without the universe.

If you ask "where did Allah come from" Id argue that since Allah is metaphysical, things like origin don't apply in that realm. But they sure do in this physical realm.

It's highly convenient that despite his being beyond detection, you can tell us whether we are right or wrong about what properties God does have simply because you say so.

This i do not agree with. Morality these days do not originate from our "moral compass". Morality these days are shaped by what is perceived as right by the society. most people do not bad things and do good things because they do not want to looked down by the society.

Animals know that their offspring are not a tasty snack but something to be protected. Experiments on monkeys have shown them behave altruistically and understand such things as fairness and equal rewards. If they don't need telling these things, why do we?

2 - There are many logical arguments (I'm sure you've heard of some of them) that can prove God - however you dont accept those arguments - its as simple as that.

Interesting, I've never heard a logically valid argument for God, and I've heard quite a few. Any ones in particular you'd like to share?

 

[Zafran]

Interesting, I've never heard a logically valid argument for God, and I've heard quite a few. Any ones in particular you'd like to share?

Like the Kalam Cosmological argumnet - that relies on finite past.

 

[Trumble]

Interesting, I've never heard a logically valid argument for God, and I've heard quite a few. Any ones in particular you'd like to share?

Actually, all of the important arguments for the existence of God are logically valid, or at least have a plausible case to be so, which is the about the most that can be said for the Kalam Cosmological Argument. If they didn't, nobody would give them the time of day. The usual reason such arguments fail to 'prove' anything is that their premises can be plausibly rejected, and that includes the KCA again.

 

[Zafran]

Actually, all of the important arguments for the existence of God are logically valid, or at least have a plausible case to be so, which is the about the most that can be said for the Kalam Cosmological Argument. If they didn't, nobody would give them the time of day. The usual reason such arguments fail to 'prove' anything is that their premises can be plausibly rejected, and that includes the KCA again.

all arguments can be rejected - The main thing is that there are logical arguments out there for the existence of God - Its up to the individual to accept or reject them.

 

[Azy]

Actually, all of the important arguments for the existence of God are logically valid, or at least have a plausible case to be so, which is the about the most that can be said for the Kalam Cosmological Argument. If they didn't, nobody would give them the time of day. The usual reason such arguments fail to 'prove' anything is that their premises can be plausibly rejected, and that includes the KCA again.

Sorry, I was mixing my terms, you're right in that the structure and (usually) reasoning used is valid but the premises are often vague or unfounded, which is pretty much what I meant but I wasn't expressing myself very well. I'll try to be good in future.

Like the Kalam Cosmological argumnet - that relies on finite past.

The cosmological argument is pretty weak, and it's not just about me rejecting something I don't like, it's flawed in a few pretty big ways.

The argument usually takes the form:
1 Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence.
2 The universe began to exist.
3 Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence (and that cause is God).

Cause and effect don't always work in the tidy way that seems intuitive. e.g. In radioactive decay, one cannot determine when or why a particular particle will decay, only that it will decay in a certain time with a given probability. There is no classical "snooker ball" cause and effect, particularly at the quantum level.

If we are to say Y has a cause, what we mean is X is the cause of Y and X precedes Y in time. As far as we know, time did not exist before the universe so to say that something can cause it makes no sense if we understand that the cause must happen before the effect.

Also there's the obvious jump at the end.
The universe must have a cause, therefore that cause must be God. Why must it be God, and is there any reason to think that such a thing is even plausible?

 

[Trumble]

Sorry, I was mixing my terms, you're right in that the structure and (usually) reasoning used is valid but the premises are often vague or unfounded, which is pretty much what I meant but I wasn't expressing myself very well. I'll try to be good in future.

Hehe.. sorry, didn't mean to lecture! I was making the point just to clarify that an argument can be perfectly 'logical' without being sound, and that such an argument can be assessed on the basis of argument and evidence, and not some arbitrary decision to 'accept' or 'reject' it based on, presumably, prior beliefs.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Also there's the obvious jump at the end.
The universe must have a cause, therefore that cause must be God. Why must it be God, and is there any reason to think that such a thing is even plausible?

And there is another jump after that. It was created by God. Which God? A lot of people seem to want to go from "It was created by a mystical force (God)" to "And he doesn't want you to eat pork or work on Sunday".

 

[nocturne]

Animals know that their offspring are not a tasty snack but something to be protected. Experiments on monkeys have shown them behave altruistically and understand such things as fairness and equal rewards. If they don't need telling these things, why do we?

As such, there are many examples of animals that eat their own young.

And where has the understanding of things such as fairness and equal rewards have got us?

Although, i agree on one thing with the atheists, there has to be a leap of faith on many issues.

 

[Azy]

None of that changes the fact that a great many species exhibit behaviour that theists consider 'learned morality'.