Reasoning to Atheism



7 thoughts on “Reasoning to Atheism

  1. He confuses random and chaotic processes. Random processes can form reliably predictable patterns like waves in the ocean or dunes in the sand or living organisms replicating themselves. But yes, thinking about thoughts or reasoning about reasoning is not going to take anyone far. Circular logic is faulty and cannot lead to valid conclusions.

    • Confusing “random” and “chaotic” processes? They are one and the same, if there is no one or nothing to make the decision. He is simply making a point. If there is no intelligence governing, who determines if it is a “random” or “chaotic” processes?

      It takes more faith to be an Atheist than to be a Christian…to believe nothing created everything that is and was is a much tougher pill to swallow!

      • Look up definitions of words random and chaotic. Random means without method or decision. Chaotic means without order. There are plenty of orderly things that happen. randomly, without anyone’s decision. Crystals, for example. One may presume that there is an intelligent decision behind everything that appears to have any order. Perhaps, this is why you don’t see the difference. That’s fine. But then one needs to explain why order eventually falls apart – organisms die, crystals have imperfections, etc. Another intelligence (Satan) working to destroy the order? Also, there are plenty of weird decisions people make that lead to chaos.

        Besides, order is in the eye of the beholder. Laws of physics are merely a human way to describe the reality.

        And yes, I agree. Atheists do have faith and plenty of irrational beliefs, although they deny it.

      • Well, see, there is the difference…I agree that everything random is not necessarily chaotic; however, everything chaotic is random. Although, order and method can be related terms. Just because you choose not to believe that there is an Intelligent Designer (ID), does not mean that it is so; no more than I saying one exists. But with an ID in mind, would He/She use man’s perceived definitions? You directed me toward an “intelligently designed” reference in order to make your point, though. That was a rather random and comedic moment, to me. But then again, I am easily amused.

        Order falls apart for a variety of reasons. As far as organisms dying, such as man, from an intelligent design standpoint…he was never intended to live forever.

        Physics, as you say, are a way describe that which is present and real through observation…the physical sciences do little more that practice observation and when possible, test the postulates and theories which they have observed to be true.

        The imperfect crystal has it’s own uniqueness, that is what makes it special to the world. Man seeks that one perfect thing, no matter what it is and in his own mind will find an imperfection within it.

        I have chosen a path that recognizes an ID, Creator, or God because science begins with presumptions and assumptions for each of their theories and that by definition is a flawed theory. And then to pass it off as fact.

        Godspeed my friend!

  2. “Nothing created everything” is an ultimate nonsense. It’s impossible to define or imagine “nothing”. “Darkness” is a lack of light. It cannot exist without light. “Emptiness” and “vacuum” are a lack of matter within certain space. They imply the existence matter and space elsewhere. “Random fluctuation” (of what?) implies the existence of time because “fluctuation” can only happen in time. Yeah, there is more nonsense in beliefs of atheists than they realize.

    But none of this implies or denies intelligence. By the way, what’s “intelligence”? Google defines “intelligence” as the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. Humans can do that. But can an omniscient entity who already knows everything acquire knowledge? The problem with those “omni” concepts is that they have to include themselves leading to the circular reasoning fault.

    My personal position is to quit reasoning once I detect a circular pattern. Just take those things as they are, without trying to understand or explain. Call it faith, perhaps.

    • Those “omni-” concepts as you describe them infer and are understood to be all-knowing, all-seeing, all present; if you are all-seeing then you have seen it all, if you are all-knowing then you know it all, and if you are all-present then you are everywhere. It is not circular in reason, but rather is no less valid of a theory or postulate from science. This is classic “straw-man” fallacy.

      CS Lewis’ position is from that of an Intelligent Designer position, in which someone or something created everything. Hence, circular reasoning is but a false assertion. Again, as in your other post, you have made an assumption that the inferred Creator would use man’s definitions. God has no need to “acquire” knowledge, but only “applies” knowledge…as He has knowledge of everything that is, was, and will be.

      What I see as being the problem with those “omni-” concepts is that man limits his Creator to be less than himself. There in-lies the circularity of reasoning, in my humble opinion!

      Godspeed my friend!

  3. Pingback: Left Over Articles (1-16-2015) – My Daily Musing

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s