Q&A: Atheism Is Completely Consistent
Atheism Is Completely Consistent
Question
Have a good week. I return and ask: why do you worship God and not the God who created God? If a human being is such a complex and intelligent creature that someone must have created him, then clearly the creator of man must be even more complex and intelligent. So complex that his existence requires an explanation even more than man’s existence—and yet he himself has no creator? That is a logical fallacy of special pleading, because by the same logic he too must have a creator. And if that creator was not created, then it is possible for a complex intelligent entity to exist without having a creator. So if you used Occam’s razor to cut off one extra God beyond God, it makes more sense to cut off God beyond man. Atheism is completely consistent; intelligence as an evolutionary development provides a much better explanation.
Answer
This issue is addressed in detail in the second and third notebooks (the second and third conversations in the first book of the trilogy).
Discussion on Answer
Indeed, a valid point.
“Researchers of God” live in a contradiction. On the one hand they claim that God is simple unity. And on the other hand He has infinite complexity (wisdom).
The question is not how science explains things and whether reductionism is always correct.
The question is what exists. And the answer is that nobody knows. And apparently it also cannot be known.
What exists is what exists. I really recommend that you review Maimonides and learn from his way, and from the Mishnah too: brief, concise, and to the point. You drag things out and make them cumbersome for no reason.
Are you also being?
Obviously.
It seems you don’t know what you’re talking about.
That which exists cannot be dependent on time. And you are dependent on time.
My being does not vanish. It only changes and rolls over into another being.
We’re not going to start a discussion here from the beginning about things that were explained there very well. I see no point in that. If it interests you, you’re welcome to read it there. You can’t miss it.
We’re not going to start a discussion here from the beginning. Everything you wrote, both in the notebooks and in the trilogy, I’m sure you can summarize in a few words. I have no patience for needless long-windedness. I did read quickly through the main points, but I didn’t see a refutation. Present something and see how easily I refute it for you.
Whoever denies idolatry is called a ‘Jew’
A — as much as I am amused (I’m not being sarcastic) time and again by your fascinating musings, I think the time has come to retire.
M.
I’m looking for a human being. Have you heard of one?
I skimmed quickly through the main points in the second notebook and didn’t see anything that refutes my argument here. If there already is a complex finite being, it is the human being, in whose mind all this logical hair-splitting was concocted. If you have a brief refutation (and I’m sure you can summarize it in a few words), present it.