Author Topic: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit  (Read 26507 times)

Offline Cavebear

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1320 on: July 30, 2017, 02:22:43 AM »
MY argument is simply that a requirement for a deity is in error, being that no deity is required for the universe to exist.  Simple undeified atoms work just fine...

Circular reasoning is when you attempt to make an argument by beginning with an assumption that what you are trying to prove is already true. In your premise, you already accept the truth of the claim you are attempting to make. ... Examples of Circular Reasoning: The Bible is true, so you should not doubt the Word of God.

You start with the assumption that a requirement for a deity is in error [MY argument is simply that a requirement for a deity is in error, being that no deity is required for the universe to exist] you then repeat the same claim, classic circular reasoning but a tautology as well.

I would feel sorry for defiled atoms. 



I'm curious what defiled atoms look like though. 

Correct because unlike the universe we can trace the existence of a laptop to a creator. However, if we didn't know how a laptop came into existence we can make the same claim no Creator necessary and the undefiled atoms of a laptop do the job fine. All we have to do is begin with the assumption a Creator isn't necessary then point to the laptop that doesn't require a Creator to function and call it proof.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!  b 1950

Offline Baruch

Re: Goddidit Vs Naturedidit
« Reply #1321 on: July 30, 2017, 07:48:01 AM »
If all assumptions are equally plausible then let me assume you are not a real cavebear ;-)

שלום