  |
TheWaterBearer
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 10:05 pm Post subject: The Problem with Atheism. |
 |
|
|
Most Atheists will use Infinite Regression as they "attempt" to prove a non-existant designer, however Infinite Regression is a nonsensical notion that is completely paradoxical. The arguement of Infinite Regression is more unscientfic then taking the bible for lituracy. And this is why...
Arguement: "If god created the universe, then who created god? "Then, who created the creator?" So on and so forth.
It is completely unscientific and paradoxical to require an explanation for the explanation. Thus, this leads to no answers whatsoever, just an infinte cycle of questions that contradict eachother in existence.
This notion of the Athiestic belief leads to Solipsism, not Atheism.
If their required an explanation of the explanation within the most fundamental fields of science then these fields would cease to exist.
In Superstring theory, the most fundamental ingrediant to nature is a "string", that of which is infinte in width and has an infinte vibrational potential. Asking "what" these "strings" are made of has no meaning whatsoever, thus if it did the strings wouldn't be fundamental and the theory would be completely paradoxical. Questioning "why" the strings vibrate is also a stumper, in this TOE there are limits of what makes somthing fundamental.
In a Qoute by Brian Grenne, "Asking what the superstrings are made of have no meaning, it's like a paragraph, which is made of sentences, then words, then letters. Asking what the letters are made up of has no meaning whatsoever."
Hence, the notion of asking the question of whether or not a designer exists becomes nonsensical and paradoxical once Infinite Regression hits the table.
It is all in the Eye of the Beholder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Makeroni
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
"God made the world." "Well, and who made God?"
The problem with people who use the infinite regression argument against a conscious creator is that they explicitly exclude the possibility for a PRIME MOVER.
Stop, wait, I am not going into the "I just define God as the prime mover, har har!" direction.
If human beings have free will, then all of them are PRIME MOVERS! Because otherwise, they are just bio-machines swimming in the cause&effect ocean of the universe.
Either the human being has true free will (however tightly interwoven into the outer and inner (body/brain) cause&effect reality, or the human being is just a machine. (And I believe that the Heisenberg uncertainty which proves mathematically that reality is at some point *really not defined*, blurry, is a good hint at the possibility that human beings might really have true free will.)
If human beings have free will, then they are capable of making true decisions, however massive the material that they have to work with is carried to the very borders of their decider-core.
And if they have free will, then they are prime movers. If they have free will, then they are true sources of cause!
Do I have to spell it out?
Either we are bio machines without free will - or it is highly probable that the whole cause&effect ocean that we live in was kicked off by a conscious prime mover![/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Makeroni
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 16, 2009 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
My above argument is the argument from free will plus Occam's Razor.
If the human being is truely a prime mover, a true source of cause, then it would be a violation of Occam's Razor to claim that the universe was not caused by a conscious entity but by something else that has yet to be figured out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
|
|
