Can you prove me wrong, Atheists?

You proved yourself wrong by coming up with this embarrassing argument.

I could eat alphabet soup and sh/t a better argument than that.

"But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true?" Sometimes you cannot, which is why checking again through the process of repeated observation and confirmation from other objective sources is always a good idea.

Also, even if your brain, and thus your thoughts were designed, how does that, in any way, lead you to think you can trust them? Maybe the being that designed your brain purposefully made it so that your thoughts are not trustworthy, thus you are in the same pickle as you claim would occur if there were no intelligence behind the universe.

In short, your entire argument is nothing but a non-sequitur that gets you nowhere.

You lose.

Play again?

Doesn't the brain just function like any other part of the body, ie. to survive? Plants and animals breathe to survive but that doesn't mean that there's any higher purpose thereof. The way phenomenon of beliefs works is through logic that the mind processes information it has acquired to make decisions. I think belief in things is important for anyone, religious or not, because they find a sense of confidence and direction in life. However, it's important for beliefs not to be based upon faulty logic so that you don't take a wrong direction in life, and I'm not just talking about religion here. All I can infer from your analogy is that religious people believe that there is a God and atheists believe that there is no God but I don't see how it validates or invalidates either side. If you want to put your beliefs to test I suggest you start by reading up on Bertrand Russell's analogy of a celestial teapot.

Yes.

Your argument breaks down at this point:

"Thought is merely the by-product of some atoms within my skull. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true?"

The two things are not related.

The fact is that you cannot 'trust your own thinking to be true'. However, this is unrelated to whether God created your brain or it was the result of a natural process. In fact, one could suppose you could trust your own thinking better if 'god designed your brain'. However, science shows that the brain is a completely unreliable tool.

What would be the point of proving you wrong? Yes I can but why would I? it does not matter how much evidence one has to tell someone who has set their mind on one way it will never make a difference, it is not up to me to tell you what you should believe, yet I believe that you should make sure that what you believe is true and right, for instance someone may tell you that there is no government you can live the way you want you can drive down the streets the way you want for there is no laws, and so you go speeding excessively down the main street in the city and go through many red lights without stopping nearly wiping out several other cars then a police officer pulls up beside you and asks you what you're doing going against the laws of the land can you tell the officer that you were told by a scientist or some other high ranking expert that there is no government and therefore no law, would you think that would be a adequate argument to the officer? what do you think he/she would say?it may be a much better thing to check out all the information you could find on the subject and make sure for yourself if there is or isn't a government and therefore law, So my dear fellow it is really you who should prove to yourself either that you are right or that you are right, and you should really only believe what you have found to be the truth. not what you want to believe for that will not necessarily be the truth just because you want to believe it. So dear fellow its not a matter of challenge that makes truth or right a challenge just shows further that your mind is set to something you want to believe so you want further reason to believe it, therefore, as I said what would be the point of proving you wrong? I don't need to prove you wrong for I have researched and found out what the truth is and therefore to myself the truth of my belief you need to do that yourself for yourself.

I speak truth

"Thought is merely the by-product of some atoms within my skull. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true?"

What on earth does this even mean? We are capable of thought because of the atoms in our skulls, yes, but HOW we are capable of thinking has nothing to do with whether or not thoughts are true. For one thing, thoughts are often opinions, which can't be false. Thoughts that pertain to facts are conclusions pulled from evidence and reasoning, and you can then judge the likelihood of that thought to be true and make a decision about what you want to believe based on this. Is that what you are asking?

I don't see what atoms producing thought has to do with trusting thoughts to be true.

If a Godless universe means your thinking is just the result of randomly firing neurons in your brain, it could also mean that those randomly firing neurons are also erroneously suggesting to you that there IS a God...when there isn't.

Your thesis therefore is neutral at best, thus pointless and inconclusive.

But thanks for playing. Try again.

(By the way, I'm not religious in the traditional sense, but I do happen to believe in God. I also believe in Science. Science requires proof and logic, but a belief in God only requires faith. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive, if you have just a little imagination. But I do think it's ironic, and also a little sad, that people who claim to "believe" also express this need to "prove." You don't have to prove anything! Just be who you are, and move on to other more important things in life than pointlessly arguing about this.)

I can't trust, with absolute certainty, that any idea is true.

I cannot argue logically with a person who holds such an illogical a position as "Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought; so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God." I guess you are doomed to hold that position until you die or receive traumatic brain injury.

The hypothetical God, that you are imagining, is an idea in your mind, but you do not trust your mind to reason, so you rely on this idea. Zing! Logic is not functional in your mind.

--

Regards,

John Popelish

...Wait.

You can't trust your thinking to be true, because it's the by-product of the atoms, neurons, and chemical messages in your brain... Thus, since one cannot trust his or her own thinking, they can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism... And this is because no one believes in God because they have no confirmation that their thoughts can by true.

But since there is no God in the universe in this scenario, no one would believe in him anyway, nor be making thoughts about how Atheism is true or untrue, because Atheism would be the general religion and accepted belief since God doesn't exist in this scenario (assuming that in this scenario, since God doesn't exist, then religions don't exist as well).

You can believe in thought without believing in God. I believe that I'm cold, or I believe that I like the color blue. Or, I believe and understand how a cell performs mitosis. I don't need to believe in God in order to verify that my beliefs that it can be cold in February, or how a cell copies itself are true.

I don't know, it's an interesting idea, but it could use a lot work and thought... Right now, it falls apart, completely.

A lovely circular argument you got there ... With both the premise of the argument and the conclusion neatly spontaneously appearing in the middle of it ..." Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe ..." .

Word play does not prove much at the best of times ...and in the worst examples it tends to merely conclude whatever you want it to ...

The means by which we can trust our reason is a philosophical dilemma that is puzzling, I'll grant. But to use bare assertions as a way out doesn't really work.

Prove that God exists, without using reason.

Saying that reason shows God and that God allows for reason is circular.