Can someone explain this to me? This is the main atheist argument, but I cannot comprehend this breakdown in logic.

Can someone explain this to me? This is the main atheist argument, but I cannot comprehend this breakdown in logic.
>God exists
>oh yeah, well what about unicorns and leprechauns?!
You can do this with literally anything because insulting something is not an argument
>atoms exist
>oh yeah, well what about unicorns and leprechauns?!

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    But we can detect atoms with machines and stuff.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You can't detect atoms with eyeballs.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You can create a model and detect their effect with your eyeballs. The concept of God on the other hand gives you zero predictive power.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >You can create a model and detect their effect with your eyeballs
          That is incorrect, you cannot detect atoms with your eyes. A world with atoms and one without are indistinguishable on the basis of your senses alone.
          >The concept of God on the other hand gives you zero predictive power.
          That is also incorrect.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I said you can detect their effect.

            What can you predict using the knowledge of God's existence?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What can you predict using the knowledge of God's existence?
            The existence of the world, the course of natural laws, things like that.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The existence of the world
            How? Because of the tired old prime mover argument?

            The difference here is that atomic theory provides a detailed explanation and prediction about the behavior of these particles in various circumstances such as chemical reactions, radiation, state of matter...etc. Whereas the prime mover is merely a metaphysical postulate and doesn't provide any specific and detailed prediction about the behavior of the universe.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you cannot do any of that. show your work. specifically I want the Terrell rotation derived from the existence of YHWH.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Can't detect the fricking air with my eyeballs either, there's thousands of ways to measure reality. Faith and feelings are not among them.

        Bait thread.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Your moronic bro sorry.
      is right, that’s the difference between your 2 examples(unless you don’t trust anything but what you sense yourself directly but that’s a different discussion). More importantly though the real argument against this point is that atheism isn’t a negative position. It’s a positive position that needs to be proven also so both theists and atheists are in the same place.
      There’s no real argument against the agnostic position (cuz your basically saying “idk”) but the argument for the theist position is that it’s not disprovable and there’s no proof against the theist position in general even when taking occums razor in a account it’s still just as good as any other positive position on the high metaphysical because they all add an extra unprovable assumption.
      Just because something doesn’t follow occums razor doesn’t make it false though so it’s still valid and possible.

      I feel like if you choose to be an atheist instead of an agnostic your more prone to pessimistic thought. And if your a theist more prone to optimistic thought, but that’s just my idea though.
      I’m a theist myself, a Muslim.

      Your moronic bro sorry. But I still love you OP. Also when I said unprovable/disprovable I mean as far as we know now. Shit could change in the future

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I didn’t mean to call you moronic twice. I didn’t mean it. That was rude.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Your moronic bro sorry.
        Insults are still not arguments
        >that’s the difference between your 2 examples
        No, it's not a difference, there is no difference.
        >unless you don’t trust anything but what you sense yourself directly but that’s a different discussion
        It is the same discussion. The irrational limitation of what exists to what we have detected with material instruments is not different to limiting what exists to what we have detected with our senses, whether you are insisting on seeing atoms with eyeballs, or seeing God with machines, you are using a standard designed to produce an arbitrarily pre-determined conclusion.
        >More importantly though the real argument against this point is that atheism isn’t a negative position. It’s a positive position that needs to be proven also so both theists and atheists are in the same place.
        The argument mentioned in OP is distinct from the "no evidence" cope, this is moving the goalposts. Furthermore, atheists and Christian theists are not in the same place, as the former is the rejection of the creator against reason.
        >There’s no real argument against the agnostic position (cuz your basically saying “idk”)
        Saying "idk" isn't a magic win button, flat earthers can say "idk". Agnosticism is not distinct from atheism either, it is a form of atheism which makes another even grander indefensible claim, that "even if God exists it's impossible to know He exists".
        >I’m a theist myself, a Muslim
        I highly doubt that. You are a fool

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Insults are still not arguments
          Your right that was mean
          >It is the same discussion. The irrational limitation of what exists to what we have detected with material instruments is not different to limiting what exists to what we have detected with our senses, whether you are insisting on seeing atoms with eyeballs, or seeing God with machines, you are using a standard designed to produce an arbitrarily pre-determined conclusion.
          I never limited what’s real to only what we sense. The whole other half of my post was basically about that. What I meant is they’re different assuming the world is real and you can trust your senses and based on your senses you can trust machines and instruments that there is more proof for atoms then leprechauns and such. Of course this doesn’t prove atoms exist though 100% because there’s no reason to believe the world is even real seeing as we could be living a dream without knowing or whatever else.
          Someone assumes the world is real because it’s practical and the use occums razor because it’s practical but like I said before it’s not 100%
          >The argument mentioned in OP is distinct from the "no evidence" cope, this is moving the goalposts.
          I didn’t move anything I argued against his point and stated my argument about the atheist and theist positions in general. Idk why your acting like I’m an atheist when I argued against them. I never said no evidence of god proves is wrong either. Your misinterpreting my point
          >Furthermore, atheists and Christian theists are not in the same place, as the former is the rejection of the creator against reason.
          Based on what? You didn’t say your argument for this position
          >Saying "idk" isn't a magic win button, flat earthers can say "idk".
          But they can say “idk” your right it’s not a win but it’s not a lose either. It’s not an argument for or against it’s literally just saying you don’t know.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Insults are still not arguments
          Your right that was mean
          >It is the same discussion. The irrational limitation of what exists to what we have detected with material instruments is not different to limiting what exists to what we have detected with our senses, whether you are insisting on seeing atoms with eyeballs, or seeing God with machines, you are using a standard designed to produce an arbitrarily pre-determined conclusion.
          I never limited what’s real to only what we sense. The whole other half of my post was basically about that. What I meant is they’re different assuming the world is real and you can trust your senses and based on your senses you can trust machines and instruments that there is more proof for atoms then leprechauns and such. Of course this doesn’t prove atoms exist though 100% because there’s no reason to believe the world is even real seeing as we could be living a dream without knowing or whatever else.
          Someone assumes the world is real because it’s practical and the use occums razor because it’s practical but like I said before it’s not 100%
          >The argument mentioned in OP is distinct from the "no evidence" cope, this is moving the goalposts.
          I didn’t move anything I argued against his point and stated my argument about the atheist and theist positions in general. Idk why your acting like I’m an atheist when I argued against them. I never said no evidence of god proves is wrong either. Your misinterpreting my point
          >Furthermore, atheists and Christian theists are not in the same place, as the former is the rejection of the creator against reason.
          Based on what? You didn’t say your argument for this position
          >Saying "idk" isn't a magic win button, flat earthers can say "idk".
          But they can say “idk” your right it’s not a win but it’s not a lose either. It’s not an argument for or against it’s literally just saying you don’t know.

          >Agnosticism is not distinct from atheism either, it is a form of atheism which makes another even grander indefensible claim, that "even if God exists it's impossible to know He exists".
          That is an indefensible claim but not every agnostic holds that position. They could just be saying they don’t know without much thought (which would be dumb but it is how it is) or more likely they could be saying there’s no way to TRULY know right now but in the future there’s a possibility. If you want to argue that you can 100% know a metaphysical position right now you can explain it now if you want but I doubt you’ll give a satisfying answer. We still don’t know what comes after death which is big blank in our knowledge
          >I highly doubt that.
          Why don’t you think I’m a theist like I said before I argued against atheism and argued for the theist position against people saying it’s disproven. Disrespectful.
          >You are a fool
          You just told me not to insult people and now you insult me? That’s a shitty thing to do, hypocritical, and pretentious way to insult someone. A bit homosexual

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >We still don’t know what comes after death which is big blank in our knowledge
            Forget I said this. It’s a bit irrelevant

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >More importantly though the real argument against this point is that atheism isn’t a negative position. It’s a positive position that needs to be proven
        It's not though
        Why does this standard only applies to religion? People seem to be able to reject every other claim presented without evidence or coherent reasoning and no one turns around and screams at them to prove with absolute certainty that something is not true
        Imagine applying this standard to legal cases for example

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Why does this standard only applies to religion?
          Because they don’t have proof. It’s classic stupid kid brain. They say their janitor dad owns a Ferrari or something, you say prove it, they say “you can’t prove my dad doesn’t have a Ferrari” but don’t ever invite you over to show the Ferrari and never show it exists.
          It’s just a way to lie to people.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >More importantly though the real argument against this point is that atheism isn’t a negative position. It’s a positive position that needs to be proven
            It's not though
            Why does this standard only applies to religion? People seem to be able to reject every other claim presented without evidence or coherent reasoning and no one turns around and screams at them to prove with absolute certainty that something is not true
            Imagine applying this standard to legal cases for example

            It is a positive position. Your asserting a claim. Also I said that both theism and atheism both have this same problem not just atheism
            >More importantly though the real argument against this point is that atheism isn’t a negative position. It’s a positive position that needs to be proven also so both theists and atheists are in the same place.

            But anyway with material things you can prove facts are most likely true or false through testing and observation of the world with metaphysical ideas you can’t do the same.

            I can prove that bigfoot most likely doesn’t exist by exploring the whole forest he’s supposed to live in and not finding him or you can prove he does exist by finding him for example. With a creator god there’s no way to attempt to prove or disprove his existence with any percentage of certainty and there’s no proof tipping one scale over the other
            Even in a world with no miracles why couldn’t there be a deistic god? I have more to say but I just wanted to say this part first

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >God exists
    no
    >oh yeah, well what about unicorns and leprechauns?!
    no
    >atoms exist
    no
    just because we can conceptualize a world without god doesnt mean we have to fill in that void with "science"

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You can detect and measure atoms anon. You can use their structure to make things. It has multiple characteristics of being real that neither your god, nor leprechauns, nor unicorns have.
    Most importantly, detect and measure.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That's not an insult, that's an argumentative challenge to you to distinguish your arguments for the god thing from any similar arguments for the unicorn thing. You try to do the same by turning it around with atoms, but it only goes to show you don't understand the challenge. Or the argument. Or, this is key, the difference between made up things you cannot observe or verify and real things you CAN observe and verify. No, this is not an insult either.

    the point it s to show you that your idea looks dumber when you apply the same standards to dumb ideas. If you don't know how to respond to that you might look silly, yeah. That doesn't make it a mean insult, that is just a feature of being stubbornly wrong about something.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I was only pretending to be moronic.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It’s not a god of the gaps argument or refutation. People are asking you to separate your god from fictional characters and beings by proving it’s real.
      It’s borderline psychedelic how little you people understand what’s actually going on when you read peoples comments, it’s honestly bordering on illiteracy.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >People are asking you to separate your god from fictional characters
        Irs not the same to begin with until you, the atheists, do this.

        ?si=QZ_M6Ny16O_vxqto
        Its on you to prove those extra properties are necessary. Or the extra gods.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What extra properties are you even talking about? What extra gods?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Properties of the unicorn. That those are necessary.
            Get to it, you have a lot of work to do.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not doing your homework for you. I don't think it can be done. You guys have been trying for hundreds of years to do it for your own proposition and you've failed.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not the one here proposing extra unnecessary properties.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Hilariously enough, you are. It's why you get made fun of and told you're wrong whenever you argue for God from necessity. It's a primary criticism of the argument.

            So if you're hoping to get someone else to do the legwork so you can finally figure out a way around that criticism, keep hoping.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >There is no predicting anything at all to begin with without God.
            >atheism in not due to ignorance but indignity which cannot be explained without God.

            Reality is full of irony and atheists are the joke, the living walking contradiction.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >*is not

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *