Atheism is unreasonable

[His_Majesty]

No dumbass, 2+2=4 is necessarily true.

If something is necessarily true, then it is POSSIBLE for it to be necessarily true...becuz if it weren't possible, then it wouldnt be actually true...dumbass.

A possibility refers when there are multiple outcomes. A necessarily refers to when there is one outcome.

If there is only one outcome, then that is one POSSIBLE outcome, becuz if weren't possible, it wouldn't be an outcome, oh stupid one.

For example, when you buy coffee at a coffee shop, you have a possibility of ordering a Latte, but it is necessary to pay for your order.

Bullcrap. It isn't necessary to pay for my order, I could pull out a gun and stick the place up and get them for all of there Latte's, and not pay for anything.

Since this is the only point of mine you responded to, I assume you couldn't counter my others. Do you now believe that self-replicating molecules exist?

Don't know, don't care. It is irrelevant to where did DNA come from and the fact that science can't tell us anything regarding origins.

Do you now believe that consciousness can arise from unconsciousness or do I have explain how babys are made, again?

No. Explain to me how consciousness first originated..then you will be talking some good shit.

Did you find an abiogenesis step that would be considered impossible? Finally, do you now believe that abiogenesis has a higher likelihood for the origin of life than god?

No and no.

---

And I don't agree with your definition. Since you pulled it out of your ass instead of out of a dictionary, I don't see any logical reason why I should adopt it, especially since it leads to silly ideas like quantum vacuum not within a space-time continuum being 'supernatural'.

Actually, it is a legitimate definition and I can understand why you wouldn't adopt it, because it will go against your worldview. A quantum vacuum exists in space-time...there has to be space for it to operate in, and there has to be time at which it operates.

What did elipses and sentences a paragraph long ever do to you, to deserve such abuse?

It didn't do anything compared to what I am intellectually doing to you.

You haven't proven infinity is a problem, a similar apparent paradox (Zeno's) indicates you could never walk across a room because there are an infinity of dimensionless points to cross, yet we manage. You've asserted a problem, but not proven it.

I'd like an answer to my analogy. If you want to talk Zeno's paradox, we can do that after you admit that you are unable to answer the analogy. No ducking and dodging here.

And you have no knowledge of whatever greater universe may exist beyond our cosmos, so that the same rules hold outside our cosmos is another assertion.

Doesn't make a damn of a difference. Speak of cosmology all you want, the infinity problem applies to anything.

Stating the apparent paradox isn't proving it really is a paradox. Zeno's Paradox has never been fully solved, yet Achilles can still pass the tortoise in a race.

So you can't answer the analogy, got it.

If there is an infinite past, then it's not a real paradox, because here we are.

But we are not here because the past is infinite, and that is the whole freakin' point. If the past was infinite, then we wouldn't be here...and you have yet to refute the analogy, which means that I must be on to something here.

If God has an infinite past, God has the same 'problem': God will never have gotten around to creating anything.

No, because no one is claiming that God endured through past infinity.

I can never take an infinite amount of steps, but that doesn't prevent me or the road from existing. You might not be able to tell how far along I am if it's infinite in both directions, but I'm on it somewhere.

No, because each step you takes represents an event that comes to past...and if you can't reach infinity step by step moving forward, then there couldn't have been an infinite amount of steps which lead to your births moving forward on an infinite time line. It is the same shit, there isn't a bit of difference. There is no way you can ADMIT that you will never reach infinity if you if you take an infinite amount of steps, but yet believe that the event of your birth can come to past if there was an infinite number of events which preceded it.

This is called the taxi cab fallacy.

Please don't become an atheist.

Ok..I won't. Only because you said so.

Quantum foam may well be infinite. As I pointed out earlier, it has all the salient features of a creator God except mind, personality, and 'supernaturality'.

Then it doesn't have the explanatory value needed to explain life, information, and consciousness.

'If you don't know the answer, that proves me right' is the argument from ignorance in a nutshell.

What I am saying is it is logically impossible for time to be infinitely long in the past. Logically impossible. No matter what you say about cosmology, quantum mechanics..nothing can help you in this regard. A timeless first cause is necessary. No escapes. Now of course, you can continue to deny it all you want, but there should be no reason why you can't answer a simple analogy if it is in fact what actually happened lol.

Logical absurdities can be demonatrated in a syllogism. It's not a logical absurdity, it's absurd in your opinion.

Yet you can't adequately answer the analogy

You say in reply to an example about hypothetical aliens.

It would be their law vs our law, but there is clearly no objective law.

Can you name a group of people that thinks rape is right? Not even rapists think that.

There isn't a belief so absurd that at least some people don't believe it

You keep confusing human nature with nature in general. It's our nature as a social species that has to cooperate to survive and has a myriad of other characteristics in common that determines what is right and wrong for humans, but it's not mystically revealed to us, we have to figure it out, largely by trial and error, in fits and starts, often taking a step backwards for two steps forward.

This is bio-babble.

Well, Charles Manson wasn't most rapists, was he?

He was a murderer that also ordered the slaughter of innocent people...that has to fit the bill somewhere in the discussion.

You are so hard to get through to. No. I JUST said that a society that disallows rape is OBJECTIVELY better to live in that one that allows it. What about the idea of living in a rapey society strikes you as okay just because the people in it think it's acceptable? As a rule, humans don't like being raped. It's traumatizing. It's still traumatizing if it's socially acceptable.

How the hell is it objectively better? In order to even make that statement, you have to already presuppose a standard of what is considered "better", which is begging the question

One, your decision to believe the author is just and holy is subjective to you. You cannot escape using your own judgment.

I have reasons to believe that it is true, though.

Second, if God determines the laws of morality, they could have been otherwise, and therefore are subjective to him...and pretty arbitrary to boot. If God discerns the laws of morality, then they are inherent and potentially can be discerned without God...and the universality of laws against murder indicates that we can at least figure out the big ones.

No, because God's laws and standards are as necessary as his own existence, and it is impossible to take the wet from the water.

That some degree of subjectivity is inescapable does not mean there are no objective facts. We each only have the knowledge, brain, senses, and personal experiences we have with which to work. Even objective facts we can only apprehend with some subjectivity, because we have little choice in the matter. Much of the usefulness of science is that it gives us a means to reduce subjectivity; but science can't tell us what we should value, it can only help us figure out how to best achieve the values we have. Those values nearly all humans have in common are based on our innate moral sentiments. The world is objective (and even that is an axiom), but our perception of it is necessarily somewhat subjective. Our reality as we perceive it is a messy mix of subjective and objective.

Lets save morality for another thread

There are several possibilities, as you're aware by now. I'm on the team that thinks not making up answers is a virtue, so I don't have a problem with 'I don't know' as the only honest current answer.

Then you give birth to the option that a mindless and blind process could have done it, which was my point from the very beginning.

He's dead, Jim.

Well, in that case, so is Charles Darwin, but that don't stop you people from damn near worshiping his theories.

Time can't fix that, it just makes it worse. The event you're proposing doesn't require time, it requires a miracle.

I couldn't have said it better myself

Opinion doesn't carry much weight in these matters.

I agree.

I am no kind of theist, so kindly stop trying to press gods on me.

To each his/her own

You've switched from 'all the time' to 'at all'. I don't pretend to be able to imagine all the possible ways it could have happened if there's no God, especially if we don't rule out other supernatural causes.

Well, if God didn't do it, there there is only one other way it could have happened.

No it would not prove that. It would prove that no supernatural intervention is required for life to exist, though.

Well, billions of years ago there was no natural intelligence around to conveniently put everything in its proper place to get shit happening...so therefore I have to believe that either a mindless and blind process did it, or I can believe that a super-intelligence did it, and I've made my decision.

Synthetic, designed life would. A self-replicating molecule produced by mimicking conditions that held in the Hadean era, on the other hand, would prove a self-replicating molecule can arise spontaneously under the right circumstances, AND it would prove it wasn't even that rare, else even the right conditions wouldn't succeed on a human scale of time.

More bio-babble. Go in a lab and demonstrate it.

You don't know what the actual odds were, because no one does, and you don't know how many chances there were, because no one does...but it was a LOT of chances.

Well, I know that life doesn't just happen spontaneously and certain astronomical conditions have to be met in order to get it. That is enough for me to disregard the entire concept as bullcrap.

Only if you so badly understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that you think the earth ibeing an open system receiving enormous energy from the sun doesn't allow local decreases in entropy.

The universe as a whole is a closed system, sparky.

Entropy in the universe is relative. The entropy at the time of the BB bang could have been maximal, and the entropy after more than before, and spontaneous order would still appear if maximum entropy increased faster than actual entropy. For instance.

Makes no sense. If our universe started from a singularity point, then how will you get any kind of low entropy from that???

If they were different, they would still be precise. No one has ever proven they CAN be different

They are what they are...the question is, how did they get there in the first place? Mindless and blind process, right?

, it's just a thought experiment. A good case can be made that the constants are what they are beause the universe's energy budget is zero, and a universe's energy budget MUST be zero. In that case, even if there are multiple universes, none of them will be very different from this one, except for being in different stages of development.

What??

Your standards are odd. I'd consider anyone who takes a hundred milllion years to get there an under-achiever if they were as smart as a person.

What is time to a being that is eternal? Reminds me of playing the game Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3...you fight Galatus, the boss of the game at the end...and after he beats you, he says "What good is earth's mightiest warriors to one that rules the universe" (paraphrase)