I disagree with his conjecture. The following demonstrates how and why, specifically, I disagree.
The main theistic package:
* An objective moral order - years of bureacracy and order has evolved us from primitive chaos
* Free will - Every single creature has free will, this is very much grey area, as it doesn't necessarily mean anything about
* A soul - Souls are not of existence, as of now. If we cannot prove it exists, it does not exist, until proven otherwise. As of everything in the realm of existence.
* Life after death - Again, no proof of that, and quite easy to disprove as it is very oxymoronic.
* God - No evidence for such a thing, as all events are traced back to causes
* Meaning - there is meaning in things that we give meaning, not from a theological and anthromorpic entity
* Bliss - there is bliss in what we make of things
________________________________________________________________________________
The main naturalistic package
* Quick description: None of the above - shows his bias, and dry humour
* No objective moral order - yes there is, just engineered by nature
* No free will - there is obviously free will, just not from a supernatural entity
* No soul - This is a completely true statement
* No meaning - as said before, it has meaning in what we make of it
* No hope - showing his presupposition again, depends on how you define hope, and for what
_________________________________________________________________________________
The 'package' that is the correct and logically truthful
* Everything is engineered by the laws of physics and nature
* The supernatural may or may not be there, but it is irrelevant until we find cogent proof for it
* Meaning is what we make of it
*Truth is found via pragmatic means
* Ethics is a weight on our journey to advancement. We are weakened by illogical thoughts. We should take the utilitarian view, no mercy to individuals, this isn't about your feelings, or the majority's world views, but the advancement of mankind.
* Pascal's wager shows how dumb faith sounds.
* My last and strongest argument. The Epicurean Paradox. All the 'evil' events that has happened in this world show how a God is logically impossible. If there is a God, is he not willing and not able to help us? Then he is, by definition, not God. Is he able but unwilling? Then he is not benevolent, and therefore making any God of any religion except Greek mythology nonexistent. Is he willing but unable? Then he is not all-powerful or having any power of any kind. This simple paradox disproves how any God could exist.
Obviously, I am a materialist, a type of monist. I do ask a question that science cannot answer, the metaphysical start of the universe. But a single unanswered question compared to the thousands of illogically answered questions theists serve makes atheism a lot more logical. We can see that many men who are uneducated are those who are theists, and those who are highly educated are atheists. Over "93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject the concept of God." - "The Nation" June 2007. That should show enough of how a wiser, more educated man who can understand the physical world better than any uneducated man has truth. In short, statistically, an atheist is right, simply looking at those numbers, but in addition, even the logical arguments for atheism is sound.
The main theistic package:
* An objective moral order - years of bureacracy and order has evolved us from primitive chaos
* Free will - Every single creature has free will, this is very much grey area, as it doesn't necessarily mean anything about
* A soul - Souls are not of existence, as of now. If we cannot prove it exists, it does not exist, until proven otherwise. As of everything in the realm of existence.
* Life after death - Again, no proof of that, and quite easy to disprove as it is very oxymoronic.
* God - No evidence for such a thing, as all events are traced back to causes
* Meaning - there is meaning in things that we give meaning, not from a theological and anthromorpic entity
* Bliss - there is bliss in what we make of things
________________________________________________________________________________
The main naturalistic package
* Quick description: None of the above - shows his bias, and dry humour
* No objective moral order - yes there is, just engineered by nature
* No free will - there is obviously free will, just not from a supernatural entity
* No soul - This is a completely true statement
* No meaning - as said before, it has meaning in what we make of it
* No hope - showing his presupposition again, depends on how you define hope, and for what
_________________________________________________________________________________
The 'package' that is the correct and logically truthful
* Everything is engineered by the laws of physics and nature
* The supernatural may or may not be there, but it is irrelevant until we find cogent proof for it
* Meaning is what we make of it
*Truth is found via pragmatic means
* Ethics is a weight on our journey to advancement. We are weakened by illogical thoughts. We should take the utilitarian view, no mercy to individuals, this isn't about your feelings, or the majority's world views, but the advancement of mankind.
* Pascal's wager shows how dumb faith sounds.
* My last and strongest argument. The Epicurean Paradox. All the 'evil' events that has happened in this world show how a God is logically impossible. If there is a God, is he not willing and not able to help us? Then he is, by definition, not God. Is he able but unwilling? Then he is not benevolent, and therefore making any God of any religion except Greek mythology nonexistent. Is he willing but unable? Then he is not all-powerful or having any power of any kind. This simple paradox disproves how any God could exist.
Obviously, I am a materialist, a type of monist. I do ask a question that science cannot answer, the metaphysical start of the universe. But a single unanswered question compared to the thousands of illogically answered questions theists serve makes atheism a lot more logical. We can see that many men who are uneducated are those who are theists, and those who are highly educated are atheists. Over "93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject the concept of God." - "The Nation" June 2007. That should show enough of how a wiser, more educated man who can understand the physical world better than any uneducated man has truth. In short, statistically, an atheist is right, simply looking at those numbers, but in addition, even the logical arguments for atheism is sound.
No comments:
Post a Comment