Nessa wrote:Kurieuo wrote:Nessa wrote:Kurieuo wrote:Nessa wrote:
Hello human...
The question does not suggest anything one way or another. It opens up a discussion to talk about dfferent possibilities.
The starting question itself didn't, but Nessa does seem accepting further down about Atheists are fools. Right Nessa?
Correct but to be fair, God said it first
You mean (a) (biblical) God (who) (does) (not) (and) (cannot) (exist) said it first?
I personally think the irrationality hits two ways.
One God says you are a fool to say there is no God
but even if he hadnt of said it... atheism does not make sense. In a purely materialistic world something can not come from nothing.
There's actually a more powerful ontological argument of sorts, based upon the property of
aseity (something existing in and of itself). I normally present it as, a foundational something must have always existed, otherwise there would be nothing. This foundational something must logically be uncreated, not contingent upon anything else for its existence. For, given
anything exists, then a "foundational something" must have always existed, and this something isn't contingent upon anything else (except obviously itself) for its own existence. (note, this thinking doesn't immediately rule out "unintelligence", it is just articulating something everyone
must logically accept regardless of whether or not we're theist or atheist)
From there, one can explore options... but ultimately, I see it always leads back to an intelligent force especially when considering (God's) invisible "attributes" that extend into our world. For example, goodness (or "badness"), or "rightness" like you oughtn't do that because it's bad and evil to rape and massacre innocent children (surely anyone with a working moral compass would consider such "wrong"). Or, it might be concepts of "fairness" (or "unfair"), "justice" (or "injustice"), "love" (or "hate") and many others. Extend such to an ontological argument for attributes that must be grounded somewhere. All such concepts can only be understood in non-physical, immaterial language. The source of them, then, we'd expect would be .... .... .... fundamentally non-physical and immaterial, even intelligent.
But then, this is all a pointless exercise, because if the physical world is all that exists, then "I" am a figment of such, consciousness is an oddity reduced to the interaction of physical atoms bouncing around. So too are all such "attributes" we apparently believe exist in the world. Atheists are kind of barking up the wrong tree trying to change "our" minds, like "we" or "they" really do exist or have some say. Rather, if "they" want "us" to "believe" the same then "they" should perhaps "look" for a drug to change the fundamental properties that make "our" consciousness "believe" this or that. (you know, kind of like Audacity who didn't accept we have real free will, kind of like
in this exchange on YouTube between an Atheist and Ben Shapiro.)
Edit: Finally, any position which logically says that I must reject my own conscious existence (i.e., "myself") as really being real, then well, either it doesn't matter what "I" apparently believe anyway (since such is caused by matters outside of "my" control), OR such positions ought to be rejected as entirely unreasonable and illogical aka foolishness.
(inside joke between Nessa and myself)