Position:Home>Philosophy> Logical question to atheist?
Question: Logical question to atheist!?
Ok for a moment I beleive that there is no God everything is based on science!.
I am sure there are a lot of arguments that we can do,let me pick one!.
My question will be WHO MADE US!? don't tell me sex of our parents, then who made our parents, if we evolved from apes then where they come from!? where does this chain end!? you see evey single object which is being made in this world has a creator!. cars,planes,machines,buildings and patent rights!.
it is exactly like that you study ABC in your first grade!? If I ask you what is behind letter "A"!. Can you give me an answer!. Simply NO!. it is exact the same nature there is nothing behind GOD, Just think Him as an A!. He is creator of the world!.
Now give reasonable answers,please no ignorant answers!. I explained you logicallycan you!?Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
its a simple thing!. no one knows!. we'll never know!. and while I believe we have evolved over billions and billions of years, I can't prove that to you!. It comes down to having confidence in your own beliefs!. I wish I could have a better argument!. But I really don't!. =/Www@QuestionHome@Com
Scientists are not sure how life began, but most believe in a Big Bang idea!. This doesn't mean that there was once a pop, and we all existed, but that the elements combined in a way which started life!. Everything living was originally a single celled organism, and the different creatures have all evolved, from the mosquito, to the human, to an amoeba!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Atheists are those who believe in the possibility and necessity of having morals without an authority telling them to have morals and to behave well!.
So, Atheists' point is not who created us!. There may be a supreme power behind all creation, yes, but that is irrelevant to an Atheist's question, which is how to create ourselves!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
So if assumption is your manner of conclusion for this matter concerned, why can't we assume that the world and its early people have been there since the beginning!? Would that not be the same as your argument, minus the 'creator' equation!?Www@QuestionHome@Com
Your argument depends on a logical fallacy: that everything in nature needs a cause, but that a god does not!. You tacitly assume that a god could spontaneously spring into existence, needing no creator of its own!. But this is a double standard!.
There is no reason why the universe could not have sprung into existence from purely natural causes!. Actually, and I hate to burst your bubble, but the leading theory describing the creation of the universe--inflationary theory--does it quite nicely without having to rely on any supernatural suppositions or hand-waving!.
Your argument is essentially a variant on the "god of the gaps" argument!. In a nutshell, this argument posits that if there's something in nature that science can not presently explain, then it must have been a god that did it!. The problem with the god of the gaps argument, though, is that science is not static!. Our knowledge of the world around us is ever growing, and this means the gaps in our knowledge are ever shrinking!. Disease was once thought to be caused by demonic possession, and lighting bolts were spears hurled by the gods!. We now know that disease is caused by various germs & pathogens, and that lightning is simply a discharge of excess electrons in one area to some other area!. So too go gods as an explanation for the origin of life or of the universe itself!.
You may want to see if you can find a copy of "Inflationary Theory" by Alan Guth at your local public or university library; it's highly readable for the lay person!. Below also is a link to the Wiki entry on the god of the gaps argument and its failings!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Nobody knows!. The whole point of atheism is that nobody can claim to know such a thing!. We might be able to claim that the big bang happened or whatever, but what is the origin of matter itself!? Again, nobody knows!.
People who claim that there must be a God because there is no answer to this question are just like people who say the theory of evolution is flawed because it doesn't address the origins of life!.!.!.they come off as ignorant!.
Science and skepticism have always been about figuring out what we can know and being aware of what we can't!. To that extent, believing that "everything is based on science" has nothing to do with atheism, which is an affirmative belief in the absence of God!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
As I see it, there is no way to really know for certain where we all came from!. If you ask where would a deity appear from, you get the standard "(Insert deity of choice's name here) always was"!. That really makes no sense either!. We do not know for certain where life began, we as atheist just know that there is more of an explanation with science because there are ways to test theories'!. Through religion or deities, there is only "faith"!. It is up to the individual to determine if you can or are willing to just say I don't know, rather than, "Deities did it"!. also, do you believe in Isis, Thor, Zeus, or the multitude of other past deities!? Probably not!. Us atheist just don't believe in one less deity than most!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Your first illogical step here, assuming you take a scientific look at the question, is asking "who"!. That automatically reduces your plausible answers to some being or creature, and based on that, a deity would be a logical, if irrational conclusion!. I say irrational because if it is assumed that everything is/was created by a deity (or deities), where and how did that being come into existance!? There has yet to be any scientific or religious explanation for that conundrum; where did everything come from!.
Sure, scientists point to the theory of the big bang, but where did the matter come from to be expelled!? What triggered such an explosion of material!? Those questions eventually get around to being answered when it comes to 'life' on Earth, via primordial soup and chemical reactions that eventually evolved into organisms and continued to form the wide variety of life seen on Earth!.
Religion, let's stick with the idea of intelligent design here, states that a deity just made things into existence "let there be light", etc!. But again, where did this material come from!? What would have been the blueprint for individual designs that would apparently work so well!? Here I refer to interactions between different types of life and their ecosystems!.
I find your example of the ABCs interesting!. What letter comes before the letter A!? Since the order of the English alphabet is based on older ones, we must look at those older languages to a time before there were written words!. That begs the question, what if we say the alphabet starts with "Z' and the letter 'A' is actually the last letter!? English is one of many languages that are read left to right, top to bottom, but there are also many that are not written nor read in those directions, and they are much older!. Thus, I present to you that there can be many things before the letter 'A'!.
While I am attempting to logically answer your question, I find it difficult to locate the specific question you are asking!. You state "who made us!?" and procede to give your opinion based on your logic!. You also infer that there are other reasonable answers, but forget one key fact; athiesm does not mean a belief that there is no god!. Athiesm is the non-worship of a god!. Athiesm also refers to a vast array of religions and non-religions throughout the world!. It is not a specific group!. It is ignorant to assume that it is, since no one would refer to Christians, Jews, and Muslims collectively as monotheists and assume they have the same beliefs, nor likewise the various polythesitic religions!.
I have found that science and religion generally do not contradict eachother!. In fact, in many ways they support or sustain eachother!. Christian Creationism does not mean the Big Bang didn't occur, in fact, the Big Bang could have been exacty the coming to being things created by a deity!.
I doubt I have answered your question, but I hope I have given you more to think about!. I do not claim to be religious, and thus abhor being referred to as an athiest, since that still is religious, but I can accept that people's beliefs will be and are different based on their knowledge base and desire to discover, whether that is through scientific methods or spiritual endevors!. If you are only shown one set of information and told this is the only truth, how are you to rationally know that your knowledge is the absolute only truth when presented with other people's truths!? For instance, if a person born and raised in a specific faith meets up with a person born and raised in a different faith, each will automatically assume that the other is wrong!. Even if they discuss their differences and find similarities, there is a reluctance to accept that someone else's opinions may actually be more correct!.
I hope, in the future, you can learn to state your question in such a way that you don't specifically state that your opinion is the only right answer (using capital letters and flat statements matter-of-factly)!. In fact, I propose that you withold your opinion until you receive your answers!. As the asker, you are given the opportunity to have the last word!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
For starters, we need to clean up the question a little before we can work with it!.
1) Belief that there is no God does not automatically assume the contrapositive that everything is based on science!. It merely assumes the premise there is no God!. Science is a way of describing the way the world is, not a force that creates anything!.
2) The question "WHO MADE US!?" assumes the premise there has to be a someone who makes things like a clockmaker or construction engineer!. The proper question isn't who, but what, made everything!? The who version is a weak causal argument that claims everything must have a cause and that cause is a conscience like ours that we can relate to!. And it is contradictory in nature because it omits the very cause of God!. also known as the cosmological argument or first mover!. The most basic problem here is assuming that the first cause is equivalent to notions of God as is described in human religious context!. There is no irrefutable evidence that God exists, or is anything like or unlike the God of human religion!. Which is not to say that God doesn't exist!. But, there is a paucity of evidence for the proof that God does exist!.
3) If we evolved from the apes, where did they come from!? This is a rhetorical attempt at confusing the issue with parents!. If we did evolve from apes they are simply our ancestors and in form, our parents!. There is no reason to distinguish between ancestors from an evolutionary position since neither primary source can be established through argument!. Empirical data is necessary before a premise can be established!. This has nothing to do with the question!.
4) Where does this chain end!? Reductio ad Absurdum in the contrapositive!. There must be a starting point and that point must be God!. Again, little evidence is offered to support the necessity that God started the universe!. In fact, there is no convincing argument for God other than to call the first cause God, whatever that cause may have been!. There is a analogy to patents, cars, planes, etc!., of which are not comparable because they lack the complexity necessary to scale the existence of God!. Of those items, we can point to the cause; humans!. Just because we cannot point directly to the cause of humans doesn't mean that in the absence of a cause it is proper to assume God is that cause!. This is akin to accusing one man for the murder of another in the absence of evidence that he didn't do it!
5) The alphabetical analogy to the letter "A" and what comes before God!. (And the proper use of the analogy would be to describe what came before "A" not behind it!.) Again, this is a bad analogy!. There is no comparison between the alphabet and the idea of God!. In, fact this analogy could in actuality weaken the argument for God!. What is before the letter "A" is the absence of "A"!. It's identity was non-existent until man conceived of a need for it!.
Please understand, when this question rises up and people start to argue over the existence of God it is usually two diametrically opposite viewpoints clashing!. The first, for the existence of God, is usually a very personal position for those people who would stake a whole lifestyle on the premise that god exists!. They have a lot to lose if they concede to the idea that God does not exist!. The second, for the lack of evidence to support the existence of God, is usually a very skeptical position for those who see very little value in the rituals people perform and value systems people maintain in the absence of proof!. The atheist or agnostic has a lot to lose as well in the form of personal freedom and suffering from social pressures!.
What atheists and agnostics see as the most offensive aspects of theism is the hypocritical nature of the typical believer!. They offer no convincing proof and demand complete and utter dominion over the mind and body of everyone!. Yet, the theists cannot even agree on their personal beliefs concurrently!. Each person is allowed their own personal version of belief!. Atheists and agnostics see this as evidence there is no positive proof and therefore a invalid form of viewing the world where many other consistent forms of everyday things offer proof and behave consistently with the laws of nature we (mankind) have discovered!.
This is not to say that one day a VALID proof for the existence of God may be found!. But, until then, a little healthy skepticism prevents the charlatans and flimflam artists from ruling the world!. And what if a proof is found that serves to demonstrate the fact that there is no God, no miracles, no supernatural!? Will you concede to the fact that you were wrong!? I would certainly concede to the fact that I was wrong in the presence of VALID and convincing proof!. Until then, I choose to wager against Pascal!. There is a wonderful life to live here and now!. Spending it working on what happens after is an awful waste of time in the absence of proof!.Www@QuestionHome@Com