Atheism/naturalism is illogical

[VinceField]

It’s a common misconception that the atheist or naturalist worldview is grounded in logic, while the Christian worldview is based in mere fantasy and belief. The reality is that the atheist/naturalist worldview in which nothing exists beyond matter and nature (i.e. God, the soul, etc.) is self-defeating, irrational, internally inconsistent and contradictory, actually requiring the atheist/naturalist to steal from the Christian worldview to even make an argument for their own belief system!

The atheist/naturalist worldview does not provide the preconditions for intelligibility, reasoning, science, natural laws, morality, human freedom and dignity- these immaterial and abstract elements of reality cannot exist if the universe is nothing more than matter in motion. Thus the very proposition of an argument for the naturalist worldview is proof that the naturalist worldview is false, as the atheist must employ logic and reasoning to argue, and again, these immaterial aspects of reality would not exist if the universe was strictly material.

The atheist worldview cannot account for intelligibility. In order for our experience to make sense, we need to think properly, which requires the laws of logic. A random chance universe of matter in motion doesn’t allow for an ultimate immaterial standard of reasoning. To the atheist, there shouldn’t even be the same laws of logic between any two people if thoughts are nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain, as everyone has different brains undergoing different chemical reactions. A correct and objective standard of thinking doesn’t make sense in a chance and purposeless universe.

Without an omniscient source of knowledge, there are no grounds for which anything can be known. One must presuppose their senses and memory are reliable to have knowledge, and yet this assumption cannot be accounted for in the atheist worldview where everything is just matter in motion and in constant change. There would be no way to know that your brain is conveying intelligibility in a meaningful and correct way. Assuming that your senses are accurate is begging the question. The atheist has no philosophical basis for trusting their own reasoning. Even if you had 99% of all possible knowledge, the 1% you didn’t have could completely change the 99% that you think you know, and so the naturalist has no sufficient foundation for knowledge and truth.

I’ve heard the argument from many atheists that mankind should be rational, but from the atheist worldview, where the universe is simply atoms bumping into each other with no underlying purpose or meaning, there is no obligation or reason to be rational. If naturalism was true and thoughts were merely chemical reactions guided by natural laws, there would be no mind and no objective reasoning or freedom of thought. If naturalism was true, there would be no rationality, there would just be whatever people end up thinking and doing resulting from these unguided natural processes. Thus the materialist who wants to be rational has already departed from his materialism and concedes his position.

Materialists believe that everything happens by chance and there is no personal control over the universe. They adopt a contradictory position, however, upon assuming the uniformity of nature, as there is no basis for assuming that what has happened in the past will happen in the future in a random chance universe. All human reasoning and science presupposes uniformity, but the atheist’s worldview does not account for this and they must beg the question and rely on an unquestioned philosophical bias to hold this belief. The atheist’s presupposition of the uniformity of nature is contradictory to naturalism.

The idea that empiricism is the ultimate standard of truth and that all truth claims are proved by empirical observation is another self-defeating view, as that itself is a truth claim which is by nature immaterial and thus cannot be tested or proven by science or empirical observation. Empiricism refutes itself. Science cannot account for the concept of truth. How does the empiricist know that all truth claims are proved by empirical observation? Did they prove that by empirical observation? Of course not, truth cannot be observed, it is immaterial and abstract.

Aside from the fact that you can’t make sense of evidence within the atheist worldview, as it lacks the preconditions for intelligibility as I’ve already demonstrated, evidence itself can never resolve a worldview conflict anyway, as a person’s worldview tells them how to interpret the evidence. Thus using evidence to prove the naturalist worldview to a Christian, for example, is the atheist’s folly, not to mention the fact that the atheist contradicts their own position as they do so.

[inavalan]

Both atheists and theists rely on faith. You can't use logic neither to support nor to combat either.

[VinceField]

Originally Posted by inavalan

Both atheists and theists rely on faith. You can't use logic neither to support nor to combat either.

The difference is that we have logic backing our faith. As I've already demonstrated, there is no logic behind atheism.

[Raziel]

Originally Posted by VinceField

The difference is that we have logic backing our faith. As I've already demonstrated, there is no logic behind atheism.

Any religion or belief system that existed before you were born is not really yours.

A person could be an atheist because they have never seen signs or indication that God exists - the only word for this is atheist - but not believing in God does not rest solely on refuting Christianity.

That person could be very astute & observant but have no need to point at a GOD for explanation.

If the Bible God exists & it is universal truth why do humans not worship naturally. We breathe, blink but a text from halfway across the world is required to inform us of a creator?

You wanna talk logic?

Faith is anything BUT logical - it is exactly that "faith".

A person chooses to believe despite what any evidence to the contrary might suggest.

Children invent all sorts of monsters to explain away thunder etc, it is reasonable to imagine the opposite also exists where by a hero or protector is created to defeat the scary things.

You don't know that Jesus walked on water or that Moses parted the red sea - you believe it but weren't there.

You don't know that a spacecraft didn't crash in 1947 Roswell - you weren't there.

Even IF a Christian disproved every religion under the sun incorrect it still doesn't prove that the Bible is true.

It doesn't mean that things that humans see as patterns are still not random.

Think of life on earth as a slot machine:

- three cherries in this demonstration creates Earth.

Now into the infinity of the universe those cherries will occur countless times, it's beyond human comprehension how many times that "random" things can line up in a row to for a pattern to emerge.

It doesn't PROVE design - but nobody really knows as it is beyond anything we can fathom.

.

[VinceField]

Originally Posted by knightoflenity

Any religion or belief system that existed before you were born is not really yours.

A person could be an atheist because they have never seen signs or indication that God exists - the only word for this is atheist - but not believing in God does not rest solely on refuting Christianity.

That person could be very astute & observant but have no need to point at a GOD for explanation.

If the Bible God exists & it is universal truth why do humans not worship naturally. We breathe, blink but a text from halfway across the world is required to inform us of a creator?

You wanna talk logic?

Faith is anything BUT logical - it is exactly that "faith".

A person chooses to believe despite what any evidence to the contrary might suggest.

Children invent all sorts of monsters to explain away thunder etc, it is reasonable to imagine the opposite also exists where by a hero or protector is created to defeat the scary things.

You don't know that Jesus walked on water or that Moses parted the red sea - you believe it but weren't there.

You don't know that a spacecraft didn't crash in 1947 Roswell - you weren't there.

Even IF a Christian disproved every religion under the sun incorrect it still doesn't prove that the Bible is true.

It doesn't mean that things that humans see as patterns are still not random.

Think of life on earth as a slot machine:

- three cherries in this demonstration creates Earth.

Now into the infinity of the universe those cherries will occur countless times, it's beyond human comprehension how many times that "random" things can line up in a row to for a pattern to emerge.

It doesn't PROVE design - but nobody really knows as it is beyond anything we can fathom.

.

I've already proven with logic why the Christian God is true. Without Him, you couldn't prove anything at all. Your current argument would be nonsensical. And now I refer you to the OP for clarification as to why that is true. Only a refutation of the OP will suffice.

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by knightoflenity

You don't know that Jesus walked on water or that Moses parted the red sea - you believe it but weren't there.

You don't know that a spacecraft didn't crash in 1947 Roswell - you weren't there.

ok if you wanna talk stuff I don't know... I don't know that this 'computer' I am typing on actually came from a 'factory' somewhere like I'm told, because I've never been there to see it. I can't distinguish that 'fact' from the idea that this thing grew on a tree. And I could go on and on in that vein, when talking about any of the things that are in my house, or even about the house itself.

I also don't know that anyone I think exists on a site like this one actually does exist, as I can't tell the difference between that and pink unicorns somehow talking to me (I'm not actually 'there' whereever 'there' is to be able to verify whatever you are going to tell me is true).


and it goes on and on and on... all the stuff that is supposed to be verifiable according to science, is only SUPPOSED to be verifiable according to science. Noone is ever in a position to actually verify any more than a small part of it and then you take a leap of FAITH that what you are told is in fact the way things are.

[Raziel]

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

ok if you wanna talk stuff I don't know... I don't know that this 'computer' I am typing on actually came from a 'factory' somewhere like I'm told,

and it goes on and on and on... all the stuff that is supposed to be verifiable according to science, is only SUPPOSED to be verifiable according to science. Noone is ever in a position to actually verify any more than a small part of it and then you take a leap of FAITH that what you are told is in fact the way things are.

I agree but your being playful in your point somewhat.

You can at least take apart & rebuild a computer. When know that damage to certain areas of the body causes various issues.

I can't prove electricity is how I am told it is but I don't label myself as a scientist. Those who cannot prove God to others cannot in reality show that God is there AT ALL.

I merely see it as ants trying to explain how a car works - it's just too complicated & beyond their own scope to grasp all of the concepts.

The universal energy behind all life & existence is simply beyond our understanding - it is simplified for our understanding as essentially a man-God creating "things" but that logic in itself is a little childish.

Why would the man-God limit themselves to 2 arms - when 100 would work faster?

I simply don't know & I love different interpretations of the "answer" - it just seems arrogant for a group to state that theirs is the one true God when - in the UK for example we did well with our OWN Gods well before Christianity came along.

.

[inavalan]

You believe that your logic demonstrated that. It didn't, it couldn't, and I suspect you're out there just to start an argument from an inflexible position, and not in a quest for the truth (that you claimed on the other thread to exist absolutely).

Theism and atheism are both faith based, and rely on limited and biased logic. Whatever in them causes you joy, is good for you because is in harmony with your earthly life purpose. Whatever in them causes you negative feelings (like righteousness) isn't in harmony with your life purpose, and you should avoid it, because it will bring you more negativity, pain, and will hinder the purpose you incarnated for.

PS: To me, "vehemence" is a sign of "erroneousness".

It's possible that some people try to prove something mystical with logic. Some internet "spiritual" drivel is riddled with attempts at logic but built on false premises and factoids.

I'm not under this misconception re atheism. It requires as much a stretch of belief as the usual religious views of the various gods and afterlife. It's also seems to rely on our five senses telling us everything rather than being a human limitation because there seems to be more (so some of us find). It's possible to trust what we think we know - an atheist might claim "and that's all there is" where I know it isn't.

As for the universe I regard it as one vast system where everything is functionally related. Do something - and the whole system has to adjust. (There might just be a problem with the measurement but that doesn't deny the theory.) We notice it closer to home with Earthen ecology. We control nothing, just make adjustments. Humanity is just another component in the culture dish. Whether an event can be random or not is unprovable. We have neither the modelling capacity nor time to find out.

An interesting topic to me being an enthusiast of General Systems theory.
.

Originally Posted by VinceField

Thus using evidence to prove the naturalist worldview to a Christian, for example, is the atheist’s folly, not to mention the fact that the atheist contradicts their own position as they do so.

The atheist's folly is the vain attempt at anything close to a reasoned discussion against a standpoint like this. This post belongs in the Dark Ages and you clearly have no idea. Personally I find it highly offensive to say the least.