RE: Evidence for atheism
September 26, 2014 at 4:33 am
(This post was last modified: September 26, 2014 at 4:42 am by genkaus.)
(September 25, 2014 at 1:58 pm)Madness20 Wrote: But in sum, and allow me the analogy, God is like an unicorn: it could exist, it's viable, it'd be very reasonable to exist. We might refute that there are unicorns on Earth in the present, but we trully can't refute the existence of a unicorn because it's an entirelly believable possibility, we have several animals with horns, i see no big reason to refute the possibility that there might be unicorns horse somewhere, even on a parallel dimension.
The same as god, it's entirelly believable that there is eternity and something trully uncreated existing, i see no reason to believe otherwise in fact. That that thing might be a god or just the "universe" in it, it's open to interpretation, but there's trully no reason to object the possibility.
This is a perfect example - I agree that unicorns could exist because as they are conceived (horses with forehead horns), they are not illogical and therefore possible.
Your god, however, is not. If you define god as an eternal, uncreated entity the it is possible that it exists. But you go further, you define him as an eternal, uncreated and conscious entity - and given the temporal nature of consciousness, that definition becomes illogical and that is a good enough reason to object to that possibility.
(September 25, 2014 at 3:10 pm)Madness20 Wrote: I said that as an answer to the argument that saying god is too complex to have been uncreated, or rather, that it is unexplainable, the same attributes do apply to our universe.
No they don't. You are confusing the counter to a theist's argument with an atheist's position. Theists argue that the universe is too complex to be uncreated or that it is unexplainable and use that as a basis to invoke god.
(September 25, 2014 at 3:10 pm)Madness20 Wrote: It's actually the opposite. I'm trying to define some concievable characteristics to our universe, and call it "god" a posteriori by it's characteristics. Let's see, eternal, creative, generating all complexity, first cause, collection of everything, deterministic/logically absolute, potentially infinite and transcending (to all sets). Hmm, yeah, this fits my definition of a God.
If i can prove it? I can't, that's why they are beliefs, not knowledge. I just have "reasonable faith" the universe follows these characteristics.
So, you are basically redefining god for your convenience?
