1.0
I am very tired of people who assumes anything about what my position really is. My position boils down to the following points:
(1) You make a claim or I've found a claim. (ex. a religious claim or an idea)
(2) I examine the claim to see what it really says. (ex. through an argument, through an existent ideas)
(3) If I found the claim to be ILLOGICAL and IRRATIONAL, then that's where I'm going to make an article exposing the irrationality and stupidity of one's idea.
.
And that's it be gone. Irrationality exposed.
.
===
2.0 Arguments about God
.
God must be proven to exist, otherwise it faces a great logical hole in his existence. There is no single argument found for the rock solid evidence that God exists. All I know about the arguments is that they have any reasonable and also rock solid objections that would otherwise CANNOT BE USED AS A PROOF THAT A GOD EXIST.
.
This is a problem, for God-Believers, also known as Theists. There are many Gods, actually too many to choose from. God of the Bible, Allah from Islam, Brahma the Creator God of Hindu, and many more.
.
There are evidences that God exist. Which God? All of them. From God to Allah, to Brahma, all of them have evidence for existence. Most of the time, they were refuted as they we're not rock solid evidences.
.
Faith is not enough. If you think that your God exist because you have faith in him and you feel him?
A Hindu has a FAITH that Brahma exist. A Hindu can feel that Brahma exist. That would be equally valid position.
.
How do we know that one of these Gods are real? What if you chose the wrong God to believe in?
.
I take no position in whatsoever in these God-Belief. Because I don't believe in God that doesn't exist and God exist. I don't believe in both actually.
.
===
3.0 Supernatural Events
.
Oh, I can't believe in Supernatural Events. Because all have ONE THING IN COMMON, they are all built in Argument from Ignorance, from the lack of evidence to complete the puzzle.
.
Let's use the example from the Eucharist Miracle from Buenos Aires.
Here's what we do know:
1. A Eucharist fell to the floor and it was picked up, put in a container full of water to dispose it properly.
2. After many days, it was found that the Eucharist was not dissolved and have reddish stains.
3. After two months, they've sent it to have a sample, found out that there was a white blood cells in it, it was blood.
4. After few weeks, they've proceeded to have a genetic analysis and found that it was from human.
5. Further analysis concluded that it was a human heart tissue. It was a living heart tissue.
6. Furthermore, it was said that it is impossible for them to sample a living heart tissue because it dies after 15 minutes that is out of the body.
.
It is a miracle? a Supernatural Event? Right? Not so fast,
Here's what we DON'T KNOW
1. We don't know for a certain how did a Eucharist 'bleed' blood.
2. We don't know for a certain how did a Eucharist turned into a living heart tissue.
3. We don't know how it was still a living heart tissue, while in fact it's been months since the sampling was conducted from it was found.
4. We don't know how the impossible could happen.
.
All the miracles in the world have this "WE DON'T KNOW" factors. This is an Argument from Ignorance. The fact that this miracle happened in a Catholic Soil, doesn't mean that Catholicism is Real, nor the miracle is real.
.
There are miracles that happened in non-Catholic religions, are their views valid? If those Non-Catholic Miracles were explained as "it was nearly impossible to happen" or "they don't know what happened" or "the experts don't know what happened."
.
Is it equally valid to say that if something can't be explained, whether it happened in a Catholic institution or not, be classified as a miracle? The fact that miracle is only thrives within the argument from ignorance, or the argument from not knowing, or the argument of the lack of information, defies the possibility that it can't be explained. It is the fallacy for the lack of knowledge.
.
The scientific experts can't explain how it happened, why should theologians explain this with ZERO and almost minimal medical knowledge?
.
===
4.0 EXPOSING THE IRRATIONAL BELIEFS BENEFITS US ALL
.
The fact that almost NOBODY can prove the existence and non-existence of God, and believing in the existence and non-existence of a God poses an irrational beliefs. There's no tangible PROOF on both sides, in whatsoever. In addition, supernatural events thrives on the argument from not knowing. The fact that we can't explain something doesn't mean that God did it. Added claim that there is no tangible proof for the existence and non-existence of a God. In fact, WE DON'T KNOW, we're on the dark, nobody has all the answers.
.
I can tell, you don't know everything, I don't know everything, nobody knows everything, even God is in dispute. Arguing from the lack of knowledge and the lack of evidence is IRRATIONAL. You're making up answers, from the lack of evidence.
.
Let's say, we are in the court trial.
The suspect has committed the crime.
Since the jury received no evidence about the suspect really committed the crime.
The jury CANNOT DECIDE, whether the suspect is really guilty or not.
But since there is the presumption of innocence, EVEN if the suspect is guilty, the suspect is freed.
.
We cannot argue from the lack of evidence. Like the jury, we don't have any strong evidence to decide. There's no such thing as the Presumption of the Existence of God, let alone the Presumption of the non-Existence of God. That's ridiculous. I don't have any position of this anyway. Let yourself decide, I'm just here to criticize your ridiculous belief and explaining why it sounds ridiculous.
You seem to be a rationalist.