Goebel is my name.Some say I'm interesting.
This is a Haiku.
Goebel Gone Global
I think this is slightly off-point.
According to the narrative in question, the bible describes the problem and nature of sin. It’s similar to the nature of a book that tells you about the dangers of eating unhealthily. The problem is there (or not there) regardless of what the book says, the book merely seeks to explain the potential problem. The book describing a problem that isn’t actually there is not akin to someone stabbing you and selling you a bandage. It’s more similar to someone trying to sell you a bandage to fix an injury that you have not sustained. What IS akin to someone stabbing you to sell you a bandage, however, is that according to the narrative, God saves us from the punishment that he himself condemns us to in the first place. He created the concept of sin, he created humans in a way that guarantees that they sin, he created damnation as punishment for the sin that he himself instilled into us, and then saves (some of) us from said damnation. Should we really be thanking him?
(Source: teachthemhowtothink, via flora--fauna)
I don’t understand why monotheists insist on using descriptors like “omnipotent” to conceptualize their deity’s abilities. It simply ends in a contradiction when you ask “can its power a surpass its power b?”. An easy to understand example is the classical question: “can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot move it?”. It’s obvious that any monotheist desiring to describe their deity accurately would prefer a non-contradictory label for their God’s power. Personally, I think “all possible power” works much better to properly describe the attributes of such a being. To answer the classic question with this new found narrative of God’s power: No, he cannot. He has the power to move any object. Exceptions to this power do not exist, therefore the power is not possible and thus he cannot create such an object.
(Source: beautyof-disobedience)
I am stunned by how bad this argument is. If you look at this argument closely or try to apply this argument to other questions, it plainly reveals itself as a sophism.
The key piece of logic (though it’s a stretch to call it that) in this argument is that if a question has answers that are contradictory then you can assume that all of the answers are invalid. This argument, applied to religion, as Hitchens states it: “Since it is obviously inconceivable that all religions can be right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong.”
Let’s say for a moment that you are taking a mathematics test back in grade school. It’s a multiple choice test, lucky you! It goes as follows:
23. 2+2=?
a. 4
b. 5
c. 8
d. all of the above
e. none of the above
Let’s brilliantly apply Hitchens’ reasoning to this problem: “Since it is obviously inconceivable that 2+2 can equal 4, 5, and 8 and not equal 4, 5, and 8, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong”
It’s lunacy!
Furthermore, if you apply the logic to the question of religion vs non-religion you’ll end up with a statement that goes like this: “Since it is obviously inconceivable that a deity created the universe and no deity created the universe, the most reasonable conclusion is that both are wrong!”
So, in conclusion, while I’m an atheist, I find this argument incredibly stupid because the assumption that you can infer that all answers to a question are wrong under the condition that they cannot possibly be conceived of in harmony is incredibly flawed due to pretty much every question conceivable containing answers that are blatantly contradictory.
Christopher, would you like a cupcake as a reward for this compelling argument? “Yes” or “no”, your answer is wrong because it’s inconceivable that “yes” and “no” are both your choice and therefore the most reasonable conclusion is to assume that both are wrong.
(Source: amazingatheist)
The paradox of infinite regress proves that the primal cause of the universe must be a being transcendent of physical laws who is both conscious and possesses free will.
Actually, it’s not so simple.
Let’s just assume for sake of argument that infinite regress is impossible. I still have a large issue with this argument.
This proves that some object or objects have always existed, sure, but where do you derive the gall to suggest that it must be a deity? How do you use this argument from infinite regression to show that something requiring less assumptions to be made that a naturalist would believe in, for example matter, isn’t the object or objects that have always existed?
This is something that very many out there who debate religion get wrong.
It’s difficult to blame them, most don’t exactly study epistemology (study of/theory of knowledge) for fun as it’s a pretty difficult subject. The basic explanation is like this:
We’ll start by acknowledging that what one believes is what one believes and that what is true is true. These two things must be separate:
- If you accept realism, it is obvious that two people can believe opposites in which case only one can be true.
- If you accept some sort of solipsism, chances are that you will admit that you do not have complete control over the reality that is represented to you and as a direct consequence that which is true is separate from that which you believe.
In epistemology, the term “belief” is used to describe any sort of cognitive content that is held as true. Whether it is true is completely irrelevant, what defines a belief is simply that one holds that something is true within his/her consciousness.
When epistemologists use the term “truth” they mean simply that something is fact, that it is in accordance with reality.
Finally, we have knowledge. In epistemology, knowledge is justified true belief.
Here is a visual example:
You will notice that knowledge must be both true and believed. But there is more to it than that, one must be able to properly and logically conclude that this belief is true in order for it to be considered knowledge - otherwise it’s just happenstance true-belief (purple).
I lack a belief in a deity and do not claim to know whether one exists, so I classify myself as an agnostic atheist. There could very well be a God out there, but if it does exist that does not change the fact that I do not currently believe in it. Not only do I lack the believe but also the means to justify such a belief as truth, so I will stick to this position until the day when justified true belief concerning a god avails itself to me, as I do not see the point in holding a belief that doesn’t hold up to a standard of justification that I find competent.
Are you crazy like me and interested in knowing more about this knot of information called epistemology? If so, here are some good books on the subject that each provide an introduction worthy of merit:
