Is Atheism a logical belief?

Likewise, just because we cannot discern the purpose at this time, does not mean that one does not exists.

 

The FACTS that I was referring to was that Hawking did NOT "hit a brick wall" as FALLACIOUSLY alleged by the OP.

Hawking made his position abundantly CLEAR on this matter.

It is the DISINGENUOUS attempt by THEISTS to HIJACK his writings that I am EXPOSING with the FACTS about what Hawking actually wrote on the matter.

 

That is ANTHROPOMORPHISM!

Just because WE have come up with the CONCEPT of PURPOSE for ourselves does NOT mean that it applies to everything in the Universe.

In essence that is the FALLACY of the Sentient Puddle as described by Douglas Adams.

 

If God can have existed forever, then why not the universe or series of universes?

 

Again, I think we should just all admit that we don't know. Sadly, creationists rarely do that, preferring to pretend to know.

 

Uh there is a link in that response. Click on the word Aristotle.

Also I said that to Derideo_Te

 

And you want me to go searching out a link to determine what in the blank you are referring to?

Lets start over and be friends? I will treat you with unwavering respect and consideration, if you undertake to do the same for me?

 

Also, what Aristotle said supports your position about an initial creator of the universe.
I’m not even sure why we have to start over. You said something interesting about Hawking that I wanted to know more about…

 

You've yet to properly address the fundamental issue with that though; Why are you only asking the question of atheists at all? It applies equally (and is equally impossible to definitively answer) regardless of whether a person believes in gods or not.

It seems to be based on (if only subconsciously) the classic presumption that nobody is permitted to question any theistic beliefs (or at least the ones you agree with) unless they have a definitive answer of their own. Resolve that misunderstanding and you'll find you need to substantially adjust your opening question (and presumptive thread title).

 

There may have been no first cause at all, and if the "first cause" "came from" anywhere, then it wasn't the first cause at all. Something else caused it. And even postulating a god as a first cause is filled with internal contradictions.

 

I presumed that Theists believe that God created Hawking's spark.

 

But postulating that there is NOT God, has no internal contradictions? I suppose that could be true were a person to just shrug and say OK?

 

Simply postulating that there is no god, alone, does not necessitate any internal contradictions. Frankly, neither does simply stating that god exists. it's when you get beyond that where you end up with internal contradictions, and both sides can lead to such contradictions. Demanding that there be a God in order to explain the first cause is the same thing as arguing that "Causality needs a cause," which is self-contradictory.

As far as I'm concerned, based on physics, it appears there was no first cause, and that even the "arrow of time" is an illusion, at least on an objective, universal scale. There is no such thing as a universal present, and the relativity of time leads to situations where two observers, in different inertial frameworks, can't even agree on the order of events. Time is relative. It makes sense in relativistic inertial frameworks, but there's no accounting for a universal, objective, absolute "arrow of time." In the B theory of time (favored by the majority of physicists), there is no need for a first cause.

 

Postulating there is not a "god" depends very much on what is meant by "god". Some are very specific about their God claims and make many internally conflicting claims about their God. Others simply say something like "god is love", so that atheism is defined pretty much out of existence. A "God" could also be a very advanced alien species or natural (as opposed to super natural) being that is beyond our comprehension. That wouldn't require any woo and is thus more plausible and believable to most skeptics than a super natural magical entity.

 

I am an atheist who believe there is no God. My answer to yours question is: I don't know.
BTW, I also don't know who killed JFK.

 

Well in a response to my post Derideo said that the universe is eternal so.....

 

Logically...if you believe that the universe is eternal then if there was a God, then logically that God would be eternal as well. The "cause" of God shouldn't be a factor in the discussion. Whether God exists is not dependant on the "cause" of God...which you did bring up btw.

 

If you believe the universe is eternal, then you believe God didn't create it.

 

I'd argue that most of our world's religions, historically, have regarded the universe is eternal and the gods as non-eternal/caused.

 

Most. But a group of unsophisticated, primitive, nomads were told that God was eternal, omnipresent. omnipotent, the beginning and the end....a tough concept to just "think up" for an uncivilized group like that. And those people are still intact today.

The concept of not having to carry your god with you,l was out of line especially for those times.

 

So you admit that the universe can be eternal without God/gods being eternal. And the concept isn't that complex. I can personally think of examples of people proposing something like this ~500BC.

 

Can an infinite god and an infinite universe co-exist? There are multiple infinities in mathematics.

 

Nope. You shouldn't put falsehoods out there.

Derideo said the universe is eternal. And it could be. Or not. But if it is than it means conceiving God as eternal is logical. more logical then wondering about God's beginning.

 

Both the universe and God could be eternal if the universe is god. Drop the anthropomorphism, drop the divine intervention. Voila! Pantheism!

 

The democrats killed JFK, but that is off topic!