I responded to a thread on Facebook about atheist morality. I expressed that I believe that religious people's belief reflects their morality and not the other way around. I gave Christians as an example, citing biblical teachings that modern Christians don't follow, and a Christian responded by arguing that everything needs a creator.

They said, 'Classic logic can bring one to the conclusion of a single God. We humans are contingent beings, that is, my parents had to make me, your parents had to make you, so on and so forth up the line. If any of that changed, I wouldn't be the same, or you wouldn't be the same. Going back and back it's not as if there can be some loop where two or hundreds or thousands are equally contingent upon each other, it must come back to one being who is not contingent upon any other being. That would be God. Now going from deism to a specific religion requires faith, but monotheistic deism is the logical way.'

This was my response, 'My parents made me using a natural biological process, and yes, their parents in turn made them. However, your logic falls apart at the point when you assume that this means a god must have initiated the process.

You postulate that everything must have a creator, then break your own postulate by saying that the first creator didn't have a creator. If your premise is that all things had a creator, who created god? You can't posit that everything requires a creator, but then say that your line of logic only works if that rule is broken. This leaves us with the postulate that some things require a creator and others do not.

If we follow this line of reasoning, my parents created me, and this extends back to a point where something came about without the need for a creator. Why can't that be the formation of organic chemicals (proteins, amino acids, RNA, and DNA) from inorganic material by chemical processes that we know to exist, and have reproduced in the lab?'

What's your take on this? What would you have responded? Do you agree or disagree with my argument?

That chap needs to get smacked with a science book.
That's like saying the universe exists because god created it, but we know that god didn't create the universe
it came about naturally over time. Even then with the big bang you just can throw god at it and hope no one will
question it. This is the thing if god created anything he downgrades the quality of everything. If god created humans
he just downgraded the quality tremendously same goes with the universe. At least with nature it's always good enough
and at rare times perfect enough but god as a creator he would a shitty creator. Because in reality all you have to say is
why isn't there a abundance of life in the universe if god created it because there should be a abundance of life. Looking at
the universe as of now we only see a fraction of it with our telescopes and we haven't found any trace of life yet.

When they finally get to the admission that everything needs a creator except god you say "provide evidence."  When they repeat themsevles...repeat your reply.

Magic is wonderful for the simple-minded.  It solves all the questions they are incapable of thinking about.

It is annoyign when people want to insist on something, but their god needs to be the exception to that something. Objective mroality coming from any individual is an oxymoron. Insisting everything needs a creator except for a creator god that no one can prove exists gets us nowhere.

It is a idiotic position to take. The so called argument is nothing but an intentional confidence trick to get one to buy absurd deductions based on very limited and poorly digested evidence.

It's amazing how "everything needs a creator" except their deity.

I didn't think I should even go into arguments for scientific theories without first addressing his logical fallacy. I may be wasting my breath (or tapping motion of my fingers) responding to him, but the logical fallacy was so obvious, I couldn't resist.

It's a garbage argument.

"Everything must have a creator/cause" is an supported assumption which is not even found to be true in quantum mechanics that is studied today. It is far more absurd to assume such a simplistic rule would apply as you imagine time going back to the Planck time, where all our current models start to go totally mental and break down.

To announce such a simplistic "rule" is to claim you know more than all of science, specifically physics and cosmology, while displaying an ignorance of both.

And, as has been pointed out, it's just special pleading to announce that a god can break this rule.

These kind of bollocks arguments always take this form:

1) Here is my heavily oversimplified model of reality, with a certain rule applying.

2) This rule implies infinite regression.

3) There can't be infinite regression. (This is another unfounded assumption. Being hard to imagine doesn't make it impossible.)

4) Therefor, something must break this regression by violating the very rule this whole argument is based on.

It's tripe of the worst order.

(November 30, 2015 at 2:45 pm)dyresand Wrote: That chap needs to get smacked with a science book.

He'll probably be one of those 'it takes more faith to believe in science' people.

(November 30, 2015 at 2:45 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Magic is wonderful for the simple-minded.  It solves all the questions they are incapable of thinking about.

It's the god of the gaps. I don't know or don't understand, therefore GOD!

(November 30, 2015 at 2:47 pm)Chad32 Wrote: It is annoyign when people want to insist on something, but their god needs to be the exception to that something.

Trying to argue logic, and then giving something in your argument a loophole is essentially an admission that the logic doesn't follow.

Quote:Objective mroality coming from any individual is an oxymoron.

I believe all morality is subjective. Opinions of what is and isn't moral have evolved over time as society evolved. It's ridiculous to me to use an ancient book as the source of morality, but the point is, in practice, it is to Christians to. Christians don't generally stone people to death, or sell their daughters, or send their wives out of the city when they're menstruating. But when you tell them the Bible commands it, they excuse it by saying, 'That's the old law, and Jesus did away with the old law' or some other BS like that.

(November 30, 2015 at 2:53 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: It is a idiotic position to take.  The so called argument is nothing but an intentional confidence trick to get one to buy absurd deductions based on very limited and poorly digested evidence.

I'm sure it makes some kind of warped sense in the guy's head. When you start accepting things on faith, you allow yourself to make exceptions to logic.

(November 30, 2015 at 2:55 pm)Beccs Wrote: It's amazing how "everything needs a creator" except their deity.

Yet, they'll ask an atheist, 'Who created the Big Bang, then?'

More important than any of this is the follow up question:

"Why should I care?"

I've still never been given a good reason by anyone. So I couldn't give a monkeys if there is a "God" or not. Makes no difference to me.