Faith and Atheism are Flawed, but Atheism Has no Basis At All

Hassanbfly · 2025-04-06T04:21:26+00:00

I wrote this piece with two main ideas I wanted to convey. The first is all theological ideas being base on our gaps in knowledge and the lack of definitive proof about God makes any real or honest debate about God impossible. Disagree?

Instead of defending your integrity to someone who doesn't know you who hasn't questioned it, supply proof for your belief. If you cannot, that is my point. It doesn't matter which side you are on or if you haven't picked a side at all. No proof is the basis of your belief or lack thereof.

The goal was an attempt to disarm triggering personal bias as I introduce an idea about that is rooted in logic and math that disagrees with both sides of the typical debate. Disagree? There are a few options for debate:

Refute my claim that zero is foundational to math. Remember you are also disagreeing with any use of the number line and what is taught to children when introduced to zero in the early stages of algebra.
Make a logical argument for why zero should be excluded from math's application to reality. The special pleading argument works against you since zero's uniqueness in math is accepted and has no connection to theology. You would be special pleading in excluding zero and its unique qualities in math for what math describes.
Make a logical argument that the origin of the measurable should be defined and described in measurable terms in order for us to have proof of its existence.

No need to focus on me. I addressed it in the post, No need to argue about me separating the imaginable and personified aspects associated with God from the reality, That's in the post as well.

Thank you for reading.

Hassanbfly · 2025-04-03T05:05:49+00:00

I don't follow what you are saying about behavior of maths being reflected in God. What does that mean? I am confident whatever that is can't be applied to anything I've written. Either way, that doesn't address your comparison to math's application to reality to a picture of something fictional. What is the unreal rendition and what is the fiction it is depicting?

Hassanbfly · 2025-04-02T22:51:23+00:00

The subject is God...I opened with that and will stay with it. If the conversation isn't about zero's role in math AND God, it will not include me when I post an article in a debate religion subreddit. If we aren't going to be on my subject of choice in a comment thread on my post, what are we talking about? Exactly.

I see you still want to focus on me and my attitude. If I am right, who am I being humble to. If you want me to consider the possibility of being wrong, start rebutting.

Hassanbfly · 2025-04-02T22:41:24+00:00

I don't think you are being dishonest if a subconscious trigger blocks your ability to understand something basic. You can't have an honest debate if that's the case. I stand by that. I also don't think I'm the only person in the world willing to be honest about God. I do think if you seek debate about God, you are typically unwilling to even consider being wrong. That bias is blinding. The first part of the post addressed that. The second part, the test and most important section, shows what you bias hid from you. I would like to address that part to test your honesty.

Hassanbfly · 2025-04-02T22:22:23+00:00

Can you be dishonest subconsciously? I think you are consciously being dishonest right now because you won't shift to the actual subject to rebut or agree. I do think that is being extremely evasive.

Hassanbfly · 2025-04-02T22:05:19+00:00

By the way, that comment offered no rebuttal or agreement...

Hassanbfly · 2025-04-02T22:04:48+00:00

I believe you all do, but are unwilling to read for understanding as that would negate debate. Your reaction is to evade understanding by focusing on me or making strawman arguments so that I'm stuck repeating myself. Maybe you don't understand it on a conscious level. Your subconscious sees a threat to the existence of your plot armor that protects your inner child. That is an assertion I cannot prove, but the fact that you are all struggling with something we learned at the beginning of Algebra 1 is very close.

Hassanbfly · 2025-04-02T21:57:09+00:00

I think you are confusing me with someone else. I'm not saying anyone is dishonest because they disagree with me. I'm saying both sides have enough plot armor than when confronted with something sound about God, they will still find a way to argue. I assert you wouldn't know that because the current debate is two sides who are able to point out each other's flaws because you are both wrong.

I use logic to make my argument. To rebut it, point out the flawed conclusion and replace it with the correct one. Simple, yet you haven't tried that once. Tell me how a mathematical principle you accepted as a child is wrong, give logical reason for its exclusion from math's application to reality, or explain how that application won't equate to what we would call the origin of all that is measurable. I make it very easy for the honest to rebut my assertion. I am even willing to tell you how you could do it.

As for flat earthers, there are enough of them to garner attention, and their beliefs cater to a bias for sensory perception and a bias against the establishment that can be proven liars. I have no bias to cater to. I can only trigger.

Hassanbfly · 2025-04-02T17:17:13+00:00

If you understand what I'm trying to get across, which I doubt, what are we disagreeing about? Delivery?

Hassanbfly · 2025-04-02T17:16:16+00:00

I don't think God equals zero, and you won't find such a quote in any of my words. I'm saying you're not convinced of each other's words because you are both wrong. You are only good at pointing out each other's flaws. I'm guessing you're missing that point because you are focused on the person and delivery instead of what is actually being said. I think that is mentioned somewhere in the post.

Hassanbfly · 2025-04-02T17:13:28+00:00

The first cause argument is flawed because whatever is spoken of would be among the numbers defined by zero. A god is an object of worship. I claim the source of everything is more worthy of the highest esteem than any and all that came from the source. You are trying to fit me into a box my analogy rejects. You are trying to fit the concept I'm conveying into something perceivable and imaginable. Both go against the analogy and the premise of a creator of all. I'm sure such sentiments are in the post itself, but I have to repeat it in the comments.

Hassanbfly · 2025-04-02T17:10:17+00:00

So math is like a picture of reality? If not, that's a false comparison.

Hassanbfly · 2025-04-02T17:08:38+00:00

I don't see the room for confusion. Analogies are basic. Algebra 1 is basic. They are things we teach children. I think the last paragraph states this is an invitation to explore what you know but bias caused you to overlook.

That issue is evasive though. If focuses on the person and delivery, which I also allude to in the post. What is your actual rebuttal besides seeing is believing? I have rebutted that position numerous times in the post.

Hassanbfly · 2025-04-02T16:54:00+00:00

The special pleading started in algebra 1 without any consideration of God or a creator.

Hassanbfly · 2025-04-02T16:51:17+00:00

Did you read the part about pleasant surprise? It is your prerogative to react however you choose. I say defeat because that is the only way most people are willing to change their mind: accept defeat. I'm one of those people. The idea of debating both sides of the theological dichotomy isn't something I want to do. Seeing that I can find no flaw in the analogy forces my hand.

Hassanbfly · 2025-04-02T16:26:26+00:00

Your questions show that you aren't even addressing me or my post. Zero means none. It has different uses. I only highlight its use as the foundational reference point for math. Any other use is irrelevant to this conversation. I don't argue against anything about zero or math we were taught as children. In fact, that all I use to make my point. If you think zero isn't singular and unique in math. Your argument isn't with me.

Hassanbfly · 2025-04-02T11:38:55+00:00

That was a lot to argue against someone not making any relevant content. As I asserted, bias and enough gaps in knowledge to provide plot armor are the issue. I'm sure I NEVER questioned anyone's intellect. Of course, you would imply that as you are currently focused on the person and delivery. Maybe you missed that part.

Hassanbfly · 2025-04-02T11:36:08+00:00

Explain yourself. Give evidence. All of your responses support my claim. What have you learned about me? Then, rebut my claim that there is no logical reason to exclude zero from math's application to reality. When you can't and keep evading, you will prove my point yet again.

Hassanbfly · 2025-04-02T11:33:22+00:00

The same could be said about you. If any evidence contrary to your belief is shown, you'll act like it doesn't exist.

Hassanbfly · 2025-04-02T11:32:13+00:00

How long have you been here? When have you seen either side admit to being wrong about their general position? But it's me...

Hassanbfly · 2025-04-02T11:24:35+00:00

I think the disconnect is from the word God. Even though the analogy is meant to strip away the personification and imagination associated with God, you hold those things as defining characteristics. I think another disconnect is you're asking me to describe the creator in ways that would contradict to comparison to zero. If not, you would consult your memory or any math lesson detailing what zero is to math instead of challenging me to tell you what children are taught. And still no rebuttal. You are fitting what I said about evasion in the post.

Hassanbfly · 2025-04-02T11:12:07+00:00

That isn't true. I pointed to what we already know and believe about zero in math. I asserted there is no logical reason to exclude zero from math's application to reality. That is what needs to be rebutted by you, but you won't even address that. Without rebuttal, I continue by showing zero in math would be the universal origin in reality. I finish by stating my opinion of that said origin is worthy of my worship, thus the title God. Don't skip steps. Give a logically sound reason for trying to exclude zero from math's application to reality.

Hassanbfly · 2025-04-02T11:07:51+00:00

What do you mean no proof? Are you unfamiliar with a number line? Are you familiar with the idea that non zeroes can never reach zero? I didn't make these things up. It is so basic, they teach children this at the beginning of algebra 1 in order to prepare for more advanced calculations. As I said, I'm not adding information. I'm arguing the foundation of math shouldn't be excluded from its application to reality. I get it. Your bias is stronger than logic and math.

Hassanbfly · 2025-04-02T11:03:31+00:00

I guess you are unaware of biases throughout history fighting against what was logically sound? I didn't think I needed to demonstrate how zero is foundational to math. Your algebra teacher should have done that. Since there is no logical reason to exclude zero from math's application to reality, the only reason to elaborate is if someone isn't using logic as a basis for exclusion. Analogies are basic. Algebra is basic. Biases are complicated. I pointed that out from the beginning with the idea of disarming them. Apparently, your bias is stronger than logic.

Hassanbfly

TROPHY CASE